Avruch
-
Posts
842 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Avruch
-
-
Is it possible to institute a "multi-check" of some sort that is linked to a trade execution? And perhaps bar trades automatically between nations that share a unique ID? The rate of successful catches in threads alleging multi abuse is pretty high, I wonder if the actual rate of multi abuse is substantially higher...
-
When I saw this I was thinking "Oh neat, they'll let individual nations truce out, and if they stay out they won't get hit again." But actually it's a move to try to destroy Guardian and SK from within. Starting to get real!
-
2
-
-
Moderation actions are not secret. We have a set of rules, and a very clear system of warnings that are publicly posted for everyone to view.
http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules
Please give them a read. If you have any concerns with a decision made by a moderator, you can shoot them a PM to ask them to elaborate on why they warned you, or you can PM me directly. There's no need to make a big, dramatic public post that turns a warning point into a witch hunt to oust so-and-so moderator.
This appears to be a result of a couple of warnings issued yesterday, which were by no means "secret" or unfair. If you'll refer to my post here: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6741-a-moderators-decision-to-suspend/?p=108323and use the Forum Rules as your own reference, you'll see things were handled fairly and according to standard procedure.
As far as escalating warning points and the method for alerting users to WPs, there's no question that standard procedure was followed. It seems like it is debatable whether "browser game" is a reference forumgoers should know is against the rules, considering that references to the game are specifically allowed in IC sections, but again that is sort of beside the point for this topic.
I think what Rahl and PiZ are suggesting isn't that procedure wasn't followed but that the procedure itself isn't ideal. Rahl's post may have been prompted by Buorhan's situation but isn't, as far as I've read, aimed directly at it - rather, the request is that moderator actions be publicly visible, open to public discussion. Moderator decisions may not be secret, as you say, but I take that to mean that only neutrally worded statements that a moderator action has occurred can be made. Anything that might be critical of a moderator action would seem to fall under the umbrella of "calling out a moderator." Anyone afraid of receiving a warning point might then decide to abstain from any and all discussions about moderator actions.
-
Rules are rules. Moderators do not need to be public with their reasoning. There is a page with all of the forum rules. It is the responsibility of every forum member to read these rules and comply with them. The rules are pretty black and white, so I don't see why there is confusion, or why members should be allowed to criticize decisions made by the mod team.
Try to apply that to any other circumstances in real life. Visibility into enforcement decisions around rules is essential for people to follow them successfully. Now matter how black and white you think the rules are, they don't account for every possible situation and couldn't possibly be clear enough to guide people that specifically. So an understanding of our they are interpreted by the "cops" is really fundamentally necessary.
Additionally, typically where enforcement actions are kept secret the secrecy is meant to protect the enforcers from scrutiny or criticism. This leads to corruption, self-dealing, cronyism, etc. Secrecy is not necessary for the smooth functioning of the forum, and long-term is in fact antithetical to a cooperative relationship between the forum staff and the forum community.
-
If enforcement is always secret, none of us can ever be sure whether something is against the rules or not. I certainly wouldn't have predicted that the words "browser game" would earn a warning point, especially since the rules explicitly allow for discussion of the "game" as a "game" in the alliance affairs forum.
If the goal of the in-character rule for some forums is to keep discussion focused on the game, then just require that discussion stay on the topic of the game. The attempt to force people to RP would only make sense if people were demanding an exclusive forum to roleplay, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
-
Potter Stewart said it best...
-
The wizards gave Buorhan a timeout for his prior comments and he may or may not return to this discussion later.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
If you attack someone and lose utterly, you don't get to dictate terms for surrender. You should expect to pay, one way or another. That's particularly true when slimy plans were revealed for all to see. Mensa suffered as a result of those plans; we followed the lead from SK and Guardian, in ignorance and inexperience, and we paid the price.
-
13
-
Spite, do you actually speak for anyone other than yourself? Because you sound like a very bad looser right now, and to be honest I don't think you have anything to boast about on a personal level. It just sounds petty/childish and kind of damages the image of Mensa HQ when you talk like that.
I use valid arguments and logic covered in rough language. You use ad hominem arguments and unsubstantiated statements covered in sugar coated language. Check this pyramid out:
a. Spite wasn't speaking as if he represented MensaHQ.
-
As many people are quickly leaning, that issue is vastly overrated. The idea seems to come more from supposition then actual practice, and now that such a situation is live it clearly is a lot less of an issue then many thought it would be.
As long as you have a huge numerical advantage in their bracket, it shouldn't be a problem. If you get numerical parity, and most of your low-tier guys are low organically while theirs have been beaten down... They will have a much higher military capacity than most people organically in the low tiers. I still think that would turn out to be a substantial advantage, I know it did for me.
-
Nothing about these terms is unreasonable. They willingly engaged in an unprovoked attack on VE and you say 50m is unjust? That's nothing. It's a mere fraction of the damage that was done. You guys may want to play a certain way, but don't try to force your way on everyone else.
Who is "you guys"? Did you check what alliance Vincent was in?
-
So what your saying is that my or their connection screw me over? This is such BS XD
So I accidently screw myself over by having a bad connection? Wtf.
If you paid the monies and have the land, how did you get screwed over.
-
What happened to this thread
It got cloudy fast!
-
A few people I know have been waiting between an hour and 4-5 hours for credit purchases made today. Maybe the process is down? Is it still manual?
-
1
-
-
BoC takes over thread and makes it nasty. GG.
-
-
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=47963
Check out the timestamp on the "truce" bit at the end. It seems to always say the current game time.
Also, I don't think every war should be said to have ended in a truce.
-
i've taken roughly 400infra damage so give or take a week to recover. hardly a situation that would require one to start considering accepting what i can only assume will be outrageous surrender terms.
saying that, the wars still young. i look forward to see if i'll hold out against this or get steam rolled. regardless of the outcome, im having fun.
Famous last words.
-
Updating my stats now that the war is over:
# Wars: 24 - 12 victories, 3 expired, 9 truced
Lost
Infra: 7,868
Soldiers: 347,045
Tanks: 10,488
Aircraft: 1,042
Ships: 98
Money: $4,471,559
Destroyed
Infra: 7,669
Soldiers: 1,256,460
Tanks: 17,148
Aircraft: 666
Ships: 151
Money: $11,853,227
Also: 23 missiles eaten :-P
-
To destroy infrastructure, like I said, it's widely accepted as a military tactic.
Not a very smart one, when you could do the same thing at much lower cost with planes or ships.
-
Two hours late is better than never. Until next time homies.
Edited to note: reps are paid in full and term 1 is satisfied.
-
Max Wells confirmed for supergenius. Someone get him his helmet.
ETA: Max, for such a ra ra warmonger, can you explain why you only had 5 wars and they were all exclusively major downhits? And only one new hit in the last 5ish days?
-
So you could just keep hurling missiles after a failed attempt? That doesn't make too much sense - all the same "action" is associated with a failed or a successful hit. It's also not consistent - failed attacks of any other type also take action points.
-
1
-
-
I didn't say that to offend you, or as a knock on Mensa's war fighting ability, it was an explanation for the high amount of monetary damage done.
No worries, I wasn't offended.
Tanks vs Soldiers
in Game Discussion
Posted
The solution is obvious: get maximum tanks and maximum soldiers and maximum planes in every city!