I have a feeling that you were personally involved in this war. Be careful about (ab)using your mod powers in such a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Printable View
I have a feeling that you were personally involved in this war. Be careful about (ab)using your mod powers in such a discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Your claim that he is "guilty by association" doesn't really make sense. All the people in Ryan's KD were complicit in the other monarch farming land, are they "guilty by association" for allowing it when they attacked in and moved the meter?
Just because Ryan "looks" like the person who went in with the intention of a fake war(seeing as he is a bank in a ghetto), doesn't mean he did what that person did(enter into what may be construed as a fake war).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Well Topsy, how do you know that their kingdom was in on the whole thing? Since you are privy to this information somehow, I'd strongly suggest reporting it to the mods so they can take action on it. Unless ofc you are assuming. Nice try though, stop trying to take shots at me. You are only qualified to supersize my combos.
One can easily contend a monarch dictates his kingdom's path, so it logically follows a kingdom was following orders that can be easily manipulated. Notice how the kings of the respective kingdoms got deleted. That was your obvious clue there, detective dip****.
For all the people arguing this deletion is wrong, answer these questions: 1. what makes u think the devs know what a nap is? 2. if Mehul was still the owner, what makes u think he knows what a nap is? 3. If a 25 player kd was "warring" another 25 player kd, and 24 out of the 25 players napped with 24 players from the other kd, would it still be a legit war if only two people were warring?. The bottomline is this: if people are napping with other players while in a war, they are doing it at a risk. Stop making things complicated, in the devs eyes this is simple fake warring, and I agree 100 hundred percent. Lastly, nobody cares about the past DHaran..... /thread.
Kuhan! go back to the GYM! :D
^^ initial post by youQuote:
Originally Posted by Nuriho
Nuriho, nowhere was it said that a thief doing ops in war was considered fake. If you persist in this asinine behaviour you will be removed. You will not get another warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuriho
The naps are at the core of this issue. You can list a number of situations where running to war for protection would be perfectly legit. It's pretty safe to assume that a province of astaraels or grande muccas size would be safe fram hits in most of the wars they enter against other ghettos. If astaraels kd would have been waved by some random kd and astarael had hit the button to avoid the conflict with force, it would have been perfectly legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
The problem here concerns the (cow) nap between the two monarchs. Im not arguing for or against the decision to ban the use of cow naps in war. Problem here is that these kind if diplomatic agreements have always been considered legit and banning Ryan without first clearly stating this change in policy could be considered harsh and rather disrespectful towards the player base.
Not sure how you came to that fail conclusion, I had no part in this war whatsoever. I don't even really know Ryan very well. Regardless, just because I'm in the conversation doesn't mean I will allow anyone to break forum rules, so there would be nothing abusive about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Landro
The guy is obviously a litte bit nub, he doesn't understand that what he did is common, and wasn't violating any known rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
The 24 player NAP argument doesn't apply whatsoever, because nobody was sitting out this war. Everyone was participating. Cow NAPs and Fake Wars are not, and have never been, under the same category. Ignoring the past would be idiocy, since that is our only frame of reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by KuhaN
You really don't get it do you? It doesn't matter if you think it doesn't apply. It does.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
lol no YOU don't get it. If there were 2 provinces not participating in the war, I can see your argument that it was a FW. That is not the case here. You essentially want to choose their war targets for them, this simple fact is absolutely unacceptable. Why would Ryan train up to hit the guy when he could just 4-tap others? And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway? Now whatever words we use to trick a ghetto into a war can get us deleted? Is any of this getting through to you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
I already covered a more suitable 24 prov NAP scenario, which you thought would be ok:
<DHaran> i can go to an extreme too, what if each prov only agreed to hit a corresponding prov in enemy kds, so all 25 provs in both kds are trading hits, thats a FW?
<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok
Can you explain why you think it's ok to NAP 24 provs this way, but not ok to NAP one?
GL DHaran... Ever tried talking to a wall before?
Anri is correct. Our position will not change on this.
<Bishop> hmmmm
<Bishop> i dunno, i suspect it would eb ok
^^ hardly a resounding confirmation.
"And who says he wasn't going to hit the guy anyway?"
^^ Ryan.
This being the first age Fake wars have been banned, the rules on it are definately not clear enough obviously. When you have a cow in a small kingdom their are very few options on war targets. Just because two cows agree not to hit each other does not make it a fake war when both kingdoms are actively attacking into eachother, chaining, max acre hitting, etc... Were in the rules does it say this is not allowed? Why would the Cow kingdoms even bother going to war with eachother if they beleived they would get deleted for something like this, it is a grey area in which maybe the Utopian Heads felt they did not agree with, in which case their should have been temporary suspension with a reason, not some harsh deletions. Two Cows going to war just to smash eachother completely goes against their goals as a cow for the age, which is superior growth and competition amongst the top charts, not getting into a brutal blood bath with another Cow just to waste eachothers time and possibly loose a lot of hard work. Even if one Cow was stronger then the other, then their would have NEVER been a war in the first place if their wasn't an agreement for the two of them to not hit eachother.
If this really gave Ryan an unfair edge to take the number 1 spot then let the other top kigndoms and top players be the ones to decide that, I'm sure they would have had their say to stop the BS or they would hit Ryan out of his spot if they felt it wasn't a fair move towards Ryan obtaining his growth and if it effected their chances at taking the Crown or making a Top 5 province themselves, etc..
Either way, it seems as if both kingdoms at war were excited and happy to finally get a FUN war.. why take that away? If personal Prov Naps are not going to be allowed then that is fine if that is what the utopian heads want to do... but it wasn't clear this age and both Players should not have gotten deleted and have their age flushed down the crapper for a grey area!
Your position is wrong. You are taking the stance that any 2 UBs in a war not doing anything should get deleted for FWing, that is the fundamental truth here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Even if this is the position of the devs, you were completely wrong to delete them for something that is not known as a FW. It's like making up a rule and deleting people for it without telling them what the rule is. It's a terrible way to handle it.
It completely makes it a fake war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purplehaze
Were in the rules is that stated, that's the point. The Conditions of what constitutes a FW were not explained well enough then.
Its not stated explicitly, like many things. That changes nothing though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purplehaze
You changed a rule to ban FWs, then decide to include things that nobody considers FWs and delete on first offenses without clarifying. Yea, that's good work Bishop.....
Well, we certainly would appreciate it if the all powerful all knowing and all seeing devs and mods would explain the rules nicely to us poor little plebs so that we don't get trap carded
I look forward to seeing your extensive survey that allows you to state that nobody thinks its a fw.
I can understand the stress that prlly comes with your position Bishop... and I completely think it was a great rule added to the game, No FW's, but their is obviously a lot of confusion on what is and is not allowed. I think people are mainly so strong against the deletions because it really doesn't make people feel comfortable knowing at any moment you can get deleted without warning for something that is not truly defined as being against the rules of Utopia.
Both involved players referred to it as a fake war. Where is the ambiguity?
Hey guys chill - this is Utopia, perfect world! :-D
This thread is like a SOPA... But sorry Utopia have no Senate or Parliament. If they say they make Stop Fake War Act (SFWA) means they make it. Done! If SFWA can use to "action" any province etc etc - too bad!!! Utopia is police state - not democracy!!!
Only thing we can do - all cow have a black-out (self-delete) to show Utopia the serious consequence of having SFWA! In fact - anyone can black-out, because you never know when you gonna get deleted by Utopia!
Let's self-delete in protest guys! :-D
You are embarrassment to doctors? Hmmm. Now I giggle when I see my doctor. Why you do this to me???Quote:
Originally Posted by Realest
^ This. GG.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Hi, I suggest that you think before you act its probably alot to ask but try. Who is this nobody, your argument failed already since there is obviously alot of people that think this okey. So, SINCE WHEN DO THE PLAYERS DICTATE THE RULES?! Put away that crack pipe son, the top tier and alot of middle and lower didnt consider trading as cheating either but that didnt make it legal. You obviously missing the biggest point, the one with the power dictates the rules, so why do you keep spammin same **** over and over again?Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
lol @ trading. Knowing a rule and intentionally ignoring it is not comparable to this. Nice try though. A ban was made on FWs, not in war prov NAPs during real wars, those are 2 separate things and have never both fallen under the definition of a fake war. Like I said, I can understand the position of the devs even if I don't agree with it, but deletion was the wrong way to handle it.
Concept is the same, you argue that since nobody agrees its a fake war then it should be okey. Newsflash it doesnt matter what the players think, its those who se the rules. Since you dont set the rules you cant really dictate what is and whats not.
Where do u draw the line between it being a fake war. For example me saying i wont hit someone as an agreement to get to war, and then plan a war around not hitting that person all the time knowing that if i HAD to i can easily break my promise to get the war win. That is lies and deceit should be an acceptable way (by the rules of the game, not how i play) to get a KD into war, and those kinds of non hits can always be changed.
Since its done and over why dont we stop crying and get some clarification on fake wars.
CASE 1:If i have a friend in another kd and i agree to not hit him and he agrees to not hit me its by definition a fake war? That is even if we each participate in chains and actively trade hits into the other kd but dont hit each other its a fake war?
CASE 2: How about if we SAY we wont hit each other, we dont but the ultimate goal is just to leave our friend as the LAST chain if the other kd is to stupid to surrender?
Please explain the difference between
1. NOT hitting someone becasue it goes against my war plan and asking them to make a similar war plan
2. Having a kd-kd agreement that there will be no dragons.
Or a difference between
1. We can only war u if your X prov doesn't fight, so the prov sits there and does nothing
2. We can only war u if your X prov doesn't fight, so the prov goes into vacation mode
3. You will win if your cow beats ours, so the cows dont fight each other or no war.
4. You will win if your cow beats ours, so the cows going into vacation mode.
Why isn't anyone interested in self-immolation? I hear it's all the rage in the Middle-East!Quote:
Originally Posted by aremarf
OK if self-deletion is too nasty - how about mass vacation mode and kingdom tags + banners?
I mean, look - when Bishop represents Utopia devs in claiming ultimate authority - that's a fact. He IS the (spokesman of the) Muammar Gaddafi of Utopa. I think as players, the only way we can exert power is to do some sort of mass protest. But I guess we're not as desperate as the Libyans or Egyptians.
You are completely missing the point I have made multiple times. I don't really have a problem with the devs deciding this a FW now, even though I don't agree, that's their decision, not mine. But it was not known as a FW previous to this, therefor it shouldn't have been a deletable offense, and clarification should have been made for future scenarios. It would have been a positive way to handle it, rather than the massively negative situation we had instead. Reinterpretation of rules on the fly is bad news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
I had a province nap with a kingdom 2 ages ago that I was in war with. Given that we lost 50,000 acres in that war, I don't think anyone on the server considered it a fake war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Goes back to the suggestion made many times, as long as it costs hundreds of millions of dollars for large provinces to build their lands, they will make province naps with eachother. Fix this problem and you'll no longer have province naps to deal with. The goofy deals made often are made as a result of things that the devs should fix, that go unfixed.
What you think is fairly irrelevant isnt it? What you can prove is far more interesting.Quote:
I had a province nap with a kingdom 2 ages ago that I was in war with. Given that we lost 50,000 acres in that war, I don't think anyone on the server considered it a fake war.
^This.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
If someone had asked me if doing that was against the rules, I would have said "absolutely not" without thinking twice. Cow NAPS are in a grey area of the FW rules. Did the devs really expect us to just assume that single prov deals were against the rules now?
But it doesn't matter now. What's done is done. Live and learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Basically, what everyone gets out of this, is that the devs and possibly you decide, arbitrarily, what a real war is, and what a not real war is. There is no defined answer, so we all have to speculate. You say nobody said thieving safely in war is being fake, but nobody said it wasn't. After all, nobody said a single province couldn't NAP another single province during war. The problem here is the definition of real and not real war and punishments for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
edit: which, to clarify, tells me that thief ops safely during war is a fake war, due to seemingly random arbitrary cases on which a fake war is. You didn't say it isn't, so i must assume it is and report it; after all cheating is cheating. Why would you punish me for trying to rid the place of cheaters? You would punish the person reporting cheaters, but not the cheaters? And I am having "asinine behaviour?" Whatever, go reply to the point above the edit, this part seems more of a rant since you are being asinine to me, and i am being asinine to you (since the word isn't based on fact, but opinion).
The line is drawn there. Encouraging people to break the rules can result in action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
2 ages ago you could fake war till your hearts content. This isnt 2 ages ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by flogger
There is nothing arbitrary about it, but yes the people that makes the rules decide what the rules are for the good of the game. If you want to be wilfully ignorant I have no interest in helping you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuriho
lol@wilfully ignorant. There's nothing ignorant about knowing what a rule is when it's not defined. Or, since you say there's nothing arbitrary, you either define on the spot, and do not publish the case with community until a ***** has been flipped, or have a whole list of scenarios defined, but do not publish with the community. How can I be ignorant of something that I am unable to gain knowledge of?
Withholding knowledge from me, then calling me ignorant.
Bishop, it was entirely arbitrary. Why else would you have 19 pages of "WTF" from the community?
They know they made wrong decision to delete them, but it's too late to admit it. It's quite common sense that the penalty was outright overkill. But it happened and we all know it even if they can't admit it. So, we could just learn from it and close the thread :) Thanks, bye.
No, i stand 100% behind the decision. Im only posting here because people keep making incorrect statments. Nothing said in this thread is changing anything.