Quote Originally Posted by DHaran View Post
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?
This has yet to be responded to sufficiently. If they are taking the stance that this is a FW, they need to explain how they can delete anyone in this scenario without the agreement being known. They'd have looked at it and saw nothing wrong. Did the deletion reason change from because he was in a fake war to because they thought the terms offered described a fake war? If you can't tell by looking at it that it's a fake war, is it still a fake war? These are the questions that haven't been answered. All UBs in war are in danger of deletion without warning.