Most of time is the same people posting the same things over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodZilla
Printable View
Most of time is the same people posting the same things over and over again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodZilla
I still haven't got an answer to this: Why was deletion better solution to, lets say, warning or suspension? What did anybody gain from ruining someones 3 months of work over such a minor offense, that ppl have been doing for years. My kingdom is now dying because you took only thing keeping us going. We have thread in the forum "what role/race will you play next age" and already some have answered "I won't be here next age". (I'm from the kingdom Astrael was deleted from)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Just because you're thick enough that everything sounds the same does not make it so. Go troll on IRC somewhere. All non-Bishops are posting for the same reason he is - we don't like incorrect statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korp
Excuse me? Fabricating lies to back your side now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Again, out of context. I could NOT break him. If I could have, with economic and strategic benefit, I would have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
10[20:32] <Ryan> it really wasnt even a 2 prov nap
10[20:32] <Ryan> it's a bluff war term i use to get all my wars
10[20:32] <Ryan> a) i wont send dragons in this war (not in range anyways)
10[20:32] <Ryan> b) i wont hit you in this war (cant break anyways)
10[20:33] <Ryan> war terms that dont negatively restrict my kd in any way
10[20:33] <Ryan> a2) I could get in dragon range by razing buildings / releasing some troops but it's not economically or strategically efficient
10[20:33] <Ryan> b2) i could get the offense to hit you but it's not economically or strategically efficient for myself or my kd
10[20:34] <Ryan> so I don't get why bishop gets to dictate what I should or shouldn't be doing in war in terms of strategy.
[20:35] <DHaran> i made the point who says you werent gonna hit the guy?
[20:35] <DHaran> tricking ppl into war is a FW now?
10[20:36] <Ryan> tricking people isnt a fw, bishop was fine with my no dragon term
10[20:36] <Ryan> but then he didnt want to understand how not hitting someone is the same concept
[20:38] <DHaran> my problem is the actions themselves broke no rules, but a few words about an agreement to not trade hits suddenly makes it illegal
[20:38] <DHaran> thats bogus
[20:39] <DHaran> if they still intervened, then they are completely deciding your targets for you in war, which is unacceptable
Interested in a war? It could be beneficial for both of us... I'll agree to not hit you and then we're both free to bottomfeed and grow while our kds duke it out ;)
^^ fits our definition of a fake war. Tough luck.
Is that out of context somehow?
Still doesn't answer my fair question :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
its been answered already.
It was his way of getting the guy to agree to war. They couldn't even break each other.....
Without that agreement (which is essentially fluff) you have nothing to go on. That's where I see a problem, because the agreement is your reasoning for deleting him, yet without it the actions they made would have been the same. In both cases no actual rules were broken, just a few words to ease the guy into a war that get construed as FWing.
I have read the whole thread and I can't see the answer, could you please point me to right direction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_am_Spartacus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Lets not **** about. Ryan just said that he did not tell the guy he wouldn't hit him, no? Have i taken anything out of context in the above? no.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
The powers that be are already too heavily invested in the decision they made, so they feel they can't back out now. Just accept their failure and move on.
I stand by the stance that in the exact same scenario, without the agreement to not trade hits, you would see this as legal. If what they are PHYSICALLY doing ingame is not a fake war, how can a few non-binding words change that definition?
I have already stated that we are happy with it. Don't try and speak for us, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadliar
You digress. Post 291 shows a blatant untruth by Ryan.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
That didn't respond to my comment at all.
Yes it is, as there's prior proof from my previous war arrangements that I use bluff war terms to get wars for my KD. Probably 35+ sent messages to other KD's with war terms that wouldn't restrict or negatively effect my KD in any way. In fact, some of those KD's have spoken for themselves and backed that in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
As stated by you, tricking KD's into war is not a punishable offense.
I'm not going to send dragons because it's not worth it.Quote:
10[20:32] <Ryan> it really wasnt even a 2 prov nap
10[20:32] <Ryan> it's a bluff war term i use to get all my wars
10[20:32] <Ryan> a) i wont send dragons in this war (not in range anyways)
10[20:32] <Ryan> b) i wont hit you in this war (cant break anyways)
10[20:33] <Ryan> war terms that dont negatively restrict my kd in any way
10[20:33] <Ryan> a2) I could get in dragon range by razing buildings / releasing some troops but it's not economically or strategically efficient
10[20:33] <Ryan> b2) i could get the offense to hit you but it's not economically or strategically efficient for myself or my kd
10[20:34] <Ryan> so I don't get why bishop gets to dictate what I should or shouldn't be doing in war in terms of strategy.
[20:35] <DHaran> i made the point who says you werent gonna hit the guy?
[20:35] <DHaran> tricking ppl into war is a FW now?
10[20:36] <Ryan> tricking people isnt a fw, bishop was fine with my no dragon term
10[20:36] <Ryan> but then he didnt want to understand how not hitting someone is the same concept
[20:38] <DHaran> my problem is the actions themselves broke no rules, but a few words about an agreement to not trade hits suddenly makes it illegal
[20:38] <DHaran> thats bogus
[20:39] <DHaran> if they still intervened, then they are completely deciding your targets for you in war, which is unacceptable
I'm not going to hit X player because it's not worth it.
Will I use that as ammo to trick these KD's into war? Yes. Like I said before I'm a bottled air salesman. I sell that crap all day.
You stated that I took you out of context by claiming you said you would not attack that prov. I then posted your mail where you said you would not attack that prov. Stop being hypocritical.Quote:
Originally Posted by I_am_Spartacus
Encouraging people to break the games rules is actionable.
Allow me to respond, since you seem keen to move away ;) Stating " i am going to break teh games rules (eg make multiple accounts and attack you)" will result in action whether you do it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_am_Spartacus
I never referred to it as a fake war? That looks like a request for war with a proposal of potential bluff terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
In one thread your pulling the innocent card because you couldn't break him. Now you're playing the "I was bluffing" card.
One or the other.
Wrong quote sunshineQuote:
Originally Posted by I_am_Spartacus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_am_Spartacus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
Which rule am I encouraging him to break? Is warring not allowed anymore?Quote:
Encouraging people to break the games rules is actionable.
http://wiki.utopia-game.com/index.php?title=Game_Rules
Stop squirming.
Uh those are the same card. Not being able to break him is exactly why it's a bluff war term. Not being in dragon range is exactly why it's a bluff war term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Palem
If you can't understand that then wow.
Using clear and well known rules as an example of how to break an unclear and unknown rule is fail. FW and prov NAPs are not the same thing and never have been. Feel free to announce that prov NAPs are now considered a FW, prior to this they weren't, then you have the precedent for deletions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
I guess there is reason why my question won't get an answer. There is none that would make sense.
It wasn't a better solution. That just isn't a topic of interest because the case for any action is flimsy and whimsical in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaine
1 prov or 25, we dont care. Arranging a war where you dont hit is fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Blaine - Its been asked and answered already, the first infraction and punishment was always going to be harsh.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
Yawn, nn folks.
If that is indeed Ryan's exact message, I still don't see anything about breaking rules in there. He is agreeing to not do something that he can't do anyway, so how is that a problem? Nothing about this will ever make sense to me, because there is no sense behind it. So you have an agreement to not do something that is already not possible and not in the interest of either of them, and you have a war that without that agreement would be viewed as legal.Quote:
Interested in a war? It could be beneficial for both of us... I'll agree to not hit you and then we're both free to bottomfeed and grow while our kds duke it out ;)
I must still be missing something.
Both were hitting the enemy provinces they could break. You entire case is flawed from top to bottom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
Well, my point here is that they would acknowledge the error made here and do better in the future. To me that's all that matters now. To me this whole thing is beginning to look like "Hey, it's our game, we are the tyrants here and we do things simple because we can and don't care what community things of it." It's quite sad since this game is much about the community after all..
Some wise man once said "Everybody make mistakes, but those who learn from them are better for it" Admission of ones mistakes is a virtue.
Until this point, everything I can recall has pointed to game mechanic abuse being subject to suspension and account abuse (xlog, multi) being subject to deletion. Vacation mode abuse is pretty similar to FW abuse, yet all of those have resulted only in suspensions. Why was this case subject to immediate deletion?
We should set a standard for how abuses get handled, not decide on the spot which way to go.
You don't need to be sorry Astarael. I don't see it as your fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by skizzikwok
You used the war for protection, but according to Golden Maw, you guys were actively looking for war.
The protection is just a bonus for warring. For example, if a kingdom has double hostility and enters war with 1, they get protection against the other.
That's normal and if you are actively participating, then it's not a fake war.
You used the war to farm? Well, making no attacks at all would be more considered a fake war.
You participated in the war, hitting the chaintarget. The growth is natural.
It is grande muccas offer that caused your deletion.
You can't break him and as an orc, I doubt you could do any ops. So the agreement has no impact on your waractions at all.
The only thing is, would you have gone into war with him without the deal? Because that's what it's all about, to be able to grow with zero risks in this war.
But you were amazed by the wargains, right? So you would have thought grande mucca was out of range to serious hurt you anyway.
That means the deal only played a small role into entering war with them. (my assumption)
And not to mention he could have broken the agreement afterall, backstabbing like some people said. And it was a 2 province nap, so their t/ms can really hurt you.
So that was in noway a zero risks free to grow situation for you.
And ultimately you got deleted because of accepting someones waroffer. Tricked into war? More like tricked into death.
I guess you are pretty new to this game and to be the first deleted for something this grey under fake war is sad.
Hope you won't quit the game though.
I understand the point you're trying to make DHaran, i really do, but that would still be considered a FW. What youre essentially trying to do is create a loophole around the term FW, and youre complicating things way too much. Its a risk napping individual provs in war, because through bull**** you can say, "oh well i was hitting this one guy all war long, how was it a fw?" Another stupid thing to do is to send an in game msg to a player saying how you two will not hit eachother but farm everybody else (clearly a fake war). Sure you can say, "well i was just tricking him", but that would be bull**** DHaran and you know it. If youre going to try and farm players while napping individuals provs then I hate to say it, but try being a little covert about it. Making it obvious and risky is stupid. Look at what happened to megaupload for example, if they were more discreet about it like the other upload sites then they wouldnt have been nailed. One last thing, warnings or suspensions is stupid, youre pretty much just letting the player get away with it, and making it more likely that other players do it. Deletion is always the way to go imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
There was never zero risk for either of them. Both kingdoms could have oped the other's big prov. It wasn't a fake war at any point.
Thats not the point, two players napped eachother in war, that to me is fake warring for both players. Yes they wouldve probably gotten away with it if they talked away from in game msgs and settled it in irc or something, but like I said before, it wouldve still been a risk, albeit smaller if they had done communications differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by DHaran
I'd still like to know what would happen if these 2 provs were roommates or married or whatever and thus could not hit each other. Can 2 good players living together both run ghetto cows and drive their KD's into each other, reaping the spoils? Or are whitlelisty (or whatever it's called now) people not allowed to war at all, since they are unable to hit each other, triggering FW status? Not a common issue, just curious. I almost landed in a war vs. my roommate after Sleepy broke up and we had to find new homes... would we have been deleted?
Personally i dont care he got deleted, its better that the reason is explained out here and that we can address the issue than the 99.999% of the time before bishop was here. Thank you bishop i know everyone is pissy but at least your here.
Wit that said
Can we please get it in the rules that
IS NOT what u define as a fake war. AS perQuote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
the definition is not that u sit out of a war and dont hit but simply that there is a SPECIFIC target that WONT be hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by I_am_Spartacus
you said it yourself when i asked
Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
Its the "agreement" that even ONE person is exempt from DAMAGE that constitutes a fake war. that is even if BOTH kids hit 100% of there attacks at the other kd if you agree to not damage a province its a fake war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop
which i think is bull, a "fake war" is NOT KD A 25 people hitting 24 of kd b people while KD B has 25 people hiting 24 of the people in kd B. Both kds are doing 25 people its just strategy on who to target.
Something in the rules like
"A Fake war is any war that occurs with the stated agreement, true or false, that one or more provinces in either kd will receive no damage."
Because as is being stated a fake war is NOT, a non-attacker in 1 kd but an agreement for no damage to be done, regardless if or not the agreement is true or false. something i dont think ANY kd would of understood before this deletion.