Rules Clarification

[Placentica]

As part of In-Character peace terms for the current war, to obtain In-Character peace, one term is to require forced vacation mode, which is an OOC-issue I believe.

 

Since I would not be on vacation I believe this would constitute an abuse of vacation mode.  I was just wondering how this would be dealt with from a game moderation standpoint.  Would I be breaking game rules?

 

Thank you!

 

 

 

For reference: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/13509-attack-of-the-stevearoos/

One fine afternoon, one of the Cornerstone Hastatii were heading towards the fields of Sparta, when suddenly, they were ambushed by a couple kangaroos with "I <3 STEVE" shirts. 

 

 

The Hastatii drew battle lines and prepared for impact as the Stevaroos hopped madly at them. Suddenly, they stopped at the shields of our soldiers. One of the little Joey's popped his head out and dinged the shield in front of him. Our soldiers responded by tickling little Joey.

 

 

 

Needless to say, the Stevearoos were not happy about that and started kicking the shields of our Hastatii, The scene immediately turned into a brawl and we have encountered a new foe.

 

Cornerstone hereby recognizes the hostile actions created by Alpha as an act of war, and will announce it since they were too busy hopping around in circles.

 

See you on the battlefield Stevearoos!

 

Cornerstone's Terms of Love:

Following these aggressive acts by Alpha, Cornerstone has deemed that 50 steel and Steve (aka Placentia) being in vacation mode for two weeks will end our spear tickles.

 

/s/ For Cornerstone

Grand Pilus – Aristide

Post Pilus – Beowulf

Legatus Princeps – Wall1515

Adelphotes Princeps – Rache

Quaestor Princeps – Zigbigadorlou

Praesidium Princeps – Piast

Acta Scientiae Princeps - Restius

Cornerstone Knights of the Senate

 

[Restius]

We did intend for this to be more of a fun and lighthearted peace terms, but in the event this is considered a violation of rules and/or abuse, we will of course not pursue such actions when peace talks come now or in the future. 

 

I do look forward to hearing what the official response is

[Placentica]

Making someone quit the game any period of time is not and will never be "fun and lighthearted" nor is it anything other than a mean-spirited OOC term for IC actions.

 

I also believe it's against the rules because it would force me to violate vacation mode rules.

[Tali]

So vacation mode is quitting?

 

Was the terms even serious to begin with....?

[Prefonteen]

Hahahahahahaa

 

Oh Steve! Never change!

[Kastor]

If anyone was wondering you can post here.

 

No Steve, this is the dumbest thing I've heard, not everything is OOC. Shut the hell up.

[Placentica]

If anyone was wondering you can post here.

 

No Steve, this is the dumbest thing I've heard, not everything is OOC. Shut the hell up.

Is this rude behavior really necessary in a moderation forum?  I am looking for a simple clarification, so that I am not at risk to violate the ToS of the game.  I'm not sure what warranted this hostile outburst in an OOC section of the forums.

 

Do you think Vacation Mode is an IC-action like nuking another player?  Suspending a nation isn't IC possible without OOC action like Vacation Mode. 

[Kastor]

Is this rude behavior really necessary in a moderation forum?  I am looking for a simple clarification, so that I am not at risk to violate the ToS of the game.  I'm not sure what warranted this hostile outburst in an OOC section of the forums.

 

Do you think Vacation Mode is an IC-action like nuking another player?  Suspending a nation isn't IC possible without OOC action like Vacation Mode.

 

Your constant posting about OOC attacks when it's been proven time and time again that none of these "OOC attacks" are actually OOC attacks. Though, I do apologize for that, I was in a bad mood.

 

No, this isn't. Forcing a nation into vacation mode isn't an OOC option if it is used as a peace term for a war. Sheepy has said multiple times that a nation cannot abuse vacation mode. You would not be abusing vacation mode if you were to enter it. You would also not be "quitting" your nation would still be leader of Alpha and able to do most things from vacation mode(send and receive messages, allow entry into the alliance, remove members, not sure about you being able to use the bank however). So no, it wouldn't be an OOC attack nor would you be abusing vacation mode.

[Auctor]

Pretty difficult to determine if it's truly funny if no one says "Get it?!" afterwards.

[Placentica]

Your constant posting about OOC attacks when it's been proven time and time again that none of these "OOC attacks" are actually OOC attacks. Though, I do apologize for that, I was in a bad mood.

 

No, this isn't. Forcing a nation into vacation mode isn't an OOC option if it is used as a peace term for a war. Sheepy has said multiple times that a nation cannot abuse vacation mode. You would not be abusing vacation mode if you were to enter it. You would also not be "quitting" your nation would still be leader of Alpha and able to do most things from vacation mode(send and receive messages, allow entry into the alliance, remove members, not sure about you being able to use the bank however). So no, it wouldn't be an OOC attack nor would you be abusing vacation mode.

I just want to quote you before you edit.

 

Would any part of my nation's functionality be disabled while I was in vacation mode?  Does someone get to determine when/if I can play the game based on how I perform in a war? 

 

I honestly don't think you understand what IC/OOC means.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Placentica

[Filthy Fifths]

no

[Four]

To clarify - Forum Moderators have no power over the game moderation or game mechanics. This is also a discussion forum - so anyone is free to share their view on the OP's question/statement....just keep it neutral and to the question, there is no reason to be inappropriate. 

 

Here is the language for Vacation Mode via in-game:

 

 

Vacation Mode is an option to preserve your nation during a temporary absence. This tool is intended for players who are going on vacation or are for some other reason going to be unable to access the site for an extended period of time (i.e. Military Service).

While in Vacation Mode, your nation will be unable to declare wars, fight existing wars, be declared war on, spy on other nations, be spied on, receive any sort of revenue, pay any bills, trade with other nations, or use alliance banks. There is no way to end Vacation Mode early. Vacation Mode is not a tool to use to avoid wars, and it is not a "peace mode". Once you put your nation in Vacation Mode, administrators will not reverse it for you, and you must wait the length of time you chose before you will regain full access to your nation.

The minimum length of time your nation can be in Vacation Mode is 2 weeks. The maximum length your nation can be in Vacation Mode is 12 months.

 

 

This is language from the "rules" section of the game:

 

 

 

Nations in Vacation Mode are exempt from this 30 day limit, but must resume activity upon exit of Vacation Mode or face prompt deletion.

 

 

Here are some threads from the community in relation to Vacation Mode:

(threads below have answers from Alex/Moderation)

 

Just Note, the threads below are popular threads (that I just skimmed through to find answers) that relate to the OP and Vacation Mode in General. I'm hoping this opens some of your eyes to Vacation Mode and answers to "abuse reports" and the such.

 

• What constitutes "Vaction Abuse" exactly?
• Get Rid of Vacation Mode
• Limit Posts While on Vacation Mode
• Vacation Mode, No Matching Nation, and IC Forums

- - - - - - -

 

A quick conclusion:

 

However uncouth the actual peace terms seem to be, I don't think it would be against the rules to "demand" nations to go into vacation mode. Ultimately, the nations at war and involved in the political war would have the choice to do it or not. There is nobody holding a gun to anyone's head here...

 

Yes, the "abuse" comes down to "we can't prove you're not on vacation" - I feel as though if a bunch of nations just started going in Vac Mode in result to some wild peace terms, nations who are not actually going on vacation....something would be done by Alex. That's just my gut thought.

 

 

To touch on the Gaming Community I don't think instilling terms such as "forced" Vacation Mode is smart or even creative. There are multiple aspects in the game that you can force (military, resources, money, applicants, recruiting...i mean it goes on) for peace terms and reparations, I don't think it needs to come down to "Vacation for Peace."

 

Ultimately, the game, the community, and the atmosphere here is what you guys make it. I hope this post opens some of your horizons to Vacation Mode and the like.

 

 

I'll open to floor to Alex.

[Kastor]

I just want to quote you before you edit.

 

Would any part of my nation's functionality be disabled while I was in vacation mode?  Does someone get to determine when/if I can play the game based on how I perform in a war? 

 

I honestly don't think you understand what IC/OOC means.

I don't think you know what it means. I also don't usually edit my posts, even for spelling.

 

Naturally, you wouldn't gain income or be able to purchase cities/military/improvements etc.. This isn't just about you losing s war mate, this is a constant state of stupidity you display in-game and on the forums, not to mention the gorilla like tactics you use to hit small nations and nuke them. I can understand why they want you to go on vacation mode.

[Woot]

Create an alliance called "Steve Jail", or "Kangaroo Zoo", set the taxes to 100%/100%, and make him agree to stay in it for a month :3

[Kastor]

Alex?

[Rache Olderen]

Create an alliance called "Steve Jail", or "Kangaroo Zoo", set the taxes to 100%/100%, and make him agree to stay in it for a month :3

We are going to build a great, great, jail and make Steve pay for it!

[HopeSolo]

I don't think you know what it means. I also don't usually edit my posts, even for spelling.

 

Naturally, you wouldn't gain income or be able to purchase cities/military/improvements etc.. This isn't just about you losing s war mate, this is a constant state of stupidity you display in-game and on the forums, not to mention the gorilla like tactics you use to hit small nations and nuke them. I can understand why they want you to go on vacation mode.

no, you clearly don't. that's easy  to see. vacation mode is an in-game option that involves RL things. it's a mode where if you have RL issues, you can use it. RL = OOC. why do you deny that RL events aren't OOC? if you think RL is IC, then that is scary.

 

what the hell are you going on about. gorilla tactics? did Alpha start any of this bullshit? no. how about when 130 ts/test nations attacked a 30 man and woman Alpha? or how cornerstone bandwagoned into a war while avoiding defending VE? or how a 'defeated' alpha is picking on small nations? how the hell are we able to hit small nations? because we were dogpiled.

 

you posts are insane, man. yea man, alpha such a bully for employing it's best available weapons in a defense war or a war in defense of allies. 

[Jodo]

lol, grow up.

[Patrick Stewart]

I was going to point out that it is "Guerrilla Tactics" not "Gorilla Tactics", but the amount of self important chest beating that is going on by people in this thread makes Gorilla Tactics equally as valid 

[Restius]

no, you clearly don't. that's easy  to see. vacation mode is an in-game option that involves RL things. it's a mode where if you have RL issues, you can use it. RL = OOC. why do you deny that RL events aren't OOC? if you think RL is IC, then that is scary.

 

what the hell are you going on about. gorilla tactics? did Alpha start any of this bullshit? no. how about when 130 ts/test nations attacked a 30 man and woman Alpha? or how cornerstone bandwagoned into a war while avoiding defending VE? or how a 'defeated' alpha is picking on small nations? how the hell are we able to hit small nations? because we were dogpiled.

 

you posts are insane, man. yea man, alpha such a bully for employing it's best available weapons in a defense war or a war in defense of allies. 

Small correction here, since it was brought up, but this is all I'll say on the matter,  because frankly that's all there is to it.

 

CS has defended VE in several wars and would continue to do so when a situation arises again, heck we even went suicide against Mensa for VE during the Glitch war and failed miserably. However, like in the past with our wars, we have remained neutral when our allies attack our allies. Every ally of ours has talked about this with us and has stated that they understand our positioning. So please stop bringing this argument up, if there is an issue between our allies with this, then they will/would have talked to us about this. 

 

As far as bandwagoning, we defended BK when Sparta attacked, just like Sparta defended NPO when BK attacked, and just like Alpha defended Sparta when we attacked. Our only issue with all of that, was that we had to post Alpha's DoW for you. Bandwagoning is more about dog-piling on an enemy who already is destroyed rather than honoring a treaty, and Sparta has been an amazing group to fight against, and we respect everything that they do and stand for. 

If VE had someone other than TKR, or another one of our allies attack them, then we would've been defending VE. Plus for the record, TKR is still the only alliance in this war who has attacked them. 

 

---

Now onto the issue at hand. Cornerstone had no interest in making the vacation mode statement into a big deal, and after reading what Four has written, we will of course gladly change our Terms of Love to something more suitable to everyone when/if that time ever comes. The Terms of Love was meant to be lighthearted fun and not offensive to anyone, and clearly it did not turn out to be the case to Alpha. So I do apologize for that, but in retrospect Had Alpha created a proper DoW on CS, we wouldn't have had to issue a Recognition of Hostilities, and this conversation probably wouldn't be happening, and the relations between CS and Alpha probably wouldn't be as stressful as they currently are. 

 

---

 

So let's both admit that we had faults in this situation, man up, shake hands, and move on. Does that sound good with Alpha?

[Dark Specter]

Snip

Not sure why you are apologising for a lighthearted joke. Steve takes things seriously and is the little boy who cried ooc.

[Tali]

Not sure why you are apologising for a lighthearted joke. Steve takes things seriously and is the little boy who cried ooc.

Just like the boy who cried wolf, the boy who cried OOC won't be saved when an actual OOC attack *actually* occurred. You Alpha members are ridiculous with your claims and half the game or more doesn't trust you. I wonder why....

 

(This post is unnecessary and whiny in every term of it.)

[Placentica]

Small correction here, since it was brought up, but this is all I'll say on the matter,  because frankly that's all there is to it.

 

CS has defended VE in several wars and would continue to do so when a situation arises again, heck we even went suicide against Mensa for VE during the Glitch war and failed miserably. However, like in the past with our wars, we have remained neutral when our allies attack our allies. Every ally of ours has talked about this with us and has stated that they understand our positioning. So please stop bringing this argument up, if there is an issue between our allies with this, then they will/would have talked to us about this. 

 

As far as bandwagoning, we defended BK when Sparta attacked, just like Sparta defended NPO when BK attacked, and just like Alpha defended Sparta when we attacked. Our only issue with all of that, was that we had to post Alpha's DoW for you. Bandwagoning is more about dog-piling on an enemy who already is destroyed rather than honoring a treaty, and Sparta has been an amazing group to fight against, and we respect everything that they do and stand for. 

If VE had someone other than TKR, or another one of our allies attack them, then we would've been defending VE. Plus for the record, TKR is still the only alliance in this war who has attacked them. 

 

---

Now onto the issue at hand. Cornerstone had no interest in making the vacation mode statement into a big deal, and after reading what Four has written, we will of course gladly change our Terms of Love to something more suitable to everyone when/if that time ever comes. The Terms of Love was meant to be lighthearted fun and not offensive to anyone, and clearly it did not turn out to be the case to Alpha. So I do apologize for that, but in retrospect Had Alpha created a proper DoW on CS, we wouldn't have had to issue a Recognition of Hostilities, and this conversation probably wouldn't be happening, and the relations between CS and Alpha probably wouldn't be as stressful as they currently are. 

 

---

 

So let's both admit that we had faults in this situation, man up, shake hands, and move on. Does that sound good with Alpha?

You did not post anything for Alpha as you are not a member of Alpha.  You do not get to dictate to us how and when we declare war or what we must do to "declare war".  I don't care what your conventions are.  Not everyone involved in this war has posted a DoW for every alliance they have attacked, including many from your own side.  You can do what you want and that is your right.  It was clear we attacked you in defense of Sparta.  Post a RoW topic if you wish, I don't care.

 

It's laughable that the real issue here is making a topic in these forums or not.  Given how hostile these forums have been to me personally when I've created a IC topic, I chose not to make an IC topic about it but rather let my in-game wars and the obvious fact that you attacked my MDP ally, Sparta.  What did you think would happen?  We are obligated to defend Sparta and are just honoring our treaty.

 

You are upset we are doing a lot of damage to you and included a butthurt term that I would like a ruling on, as it may be against game rules.  If Alex says it's an acceptable action, then you can attempt to make Alpha accept that term.  It's hilarious that many on your side have done the same thing, Alpha was just honoring a treaty, and you are the only alliance that has demanded reps/terms despite those facts.  I know you are upset that you are the worst fighting alliance on your side, but this isn't going to make your alliance look any better.

 

And making someone quit the game for 14-days is not light-hearted.  Is making someone quit the game for 30 days okay?  What about 90 days?  What about 1 year?  You can see the can of worms this opens up.  If you can make terms that require someone to quit the game for a period of time, I would like Alex to make it clear if that is acceptable.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Placentica

[Buorhann]

how about when 130 ts/test nations attacked a 30 man and woman Alpha? 

 

 

We get it Hope, you're a woman.

How many times do you edit your posts, Steve?  Good lord man.

[Tali]

We get it Hope, you're a woman.

 

How many times do you edit your posts, Steve? Good lord man.

As much as he posts opinions.

 

Or whiny &#33;@#&#036;ing topics.