Jump to content

A message to BK (IQ)


Guest Elijah Mikaelson
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
2 hours ago, James II said:

@@Alex Why does BK ahve the benefit of you tracking bank transactions for them,

 

You returned it to an alliance you helped track money down from in the first place. Your rule says nothing about sending it to someone you presume it came from. You used methods that general membership does not have access too, to track money, and then you took that money and gave it to a bank that never had it.  Your bias is ever apparent.

You're conflating two completely separate instances.

@Elijah Mikaelson getting penalized for protecting money and resources in Vacation Mode had nothing to do with investigating where some missing bank funds had gone (under the presumption there was possibly a bug in the game) and those instances were separated by a considerable amount of time anyway.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
14 minutes ago, Deulos said:

Entering vacation mode was your mistake. Why didn't you set up someone or a offshore alliance to quickly stage that money away? You had to know BK was desperate for any cash they could get their hands on since their resources were drained from being in a 6 month war.


Well in truth when you read the rules "

Hiding Alliance Banks

Using Vacation Mode as a way to protect an alliance bank from being raided is against the rules. If you are caught doing so, the bank will be promptly returned, with 20% of the contents deleted. If you suspect this is happening, please PM Alex in-game and he will investigate.

Using a brand new nation (less than 14 days old) to protect an alliance bank using their starting protection time (from new war declarations) is also against the rules. If you are caught doing so, the bank will be promptly returned, with 20% of the contents deleted. If you suspect this is happening, please PM Alex in-game and he will investigate."

I did not violate any of those rules, my nation is not 14 days old and I was not using vacation mode to protect an alliance bank, I used it to protect my war chest. how was I do know that would be seen as hiding an alliance bank, even when you check my logs when i came out of VM i sold what i had left and bought more cities. I mean damn Alex said it was an odd case as i spent 7 billion on cities, how would that be seen as hiding an alliance bank when i spent a huge chuck of it lol

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

You're conflating two completely separate instances.

@Elijah Mikaelson getting penalized for protecting money and resources in Vacation Mode had nothing to do with investigating where some missing bank funds had gone (under the presumption there was possibly a bug in the game) and those instances were separated by a considerable amount of time anyway.

This is true, Alex giving Seeker information on bank to bank transactions and a link to my bank to nation transactions highlighting where the money had gone had no link to Alex removing a big chunk of my resources and sending it to BK's offshore even when i explained it was my personal wealth/WC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex said:

You're conflating two completely separate instances.

@Elijah Mikaelson getting penalized for protecting money and resources in Vacation Mode had nothing to do with investigating where some missing bank funds had gone (under the presumption there was possibly a bug in the game) and those instances were separated by a considerable amount of time anyway.

It has everything to do with it. The second part would have never happened had you not went around the normal game mechanics the rest of us had, and benefited a group that has a gross advantage, by using your admin powers to help them, that would have otherwise not been available.

The money returned to BK, was also not last in BK bank, it should be returned to the previous bank, if that bank is deleted then it should go to the current bank that member is in. You elected, again, to help them. In your rule you are extremely vague, and elected to return to someone that the money did not belong to at all. Even by your account, you circumvented two previous owners, in favor of one. The very same group you elected, unfairly, to help with your administrative powers before

That's two times you chose a side, and bent your own rules to extremes for them. The consistency of abuse of the power is there. I understand you're the administrator and can do whatever the hell you want with your game, but surely you see you went far, and when way out of your way to give help to one particular group, on two occasions. That is unprecedented.

EDIT: You should be deleting that money from the BK bank and putting it in EM's bank.

Even if you could prove that money belong too BK, which you shouldn't because none of us have the same benefit, the bank was three times removed at the very least. You went wayyyy back. The bias is clear, and if you are certain you aren't being bias, then certainly you have the power to see how the perception looks, and that in retrospect, you were wrong to do so.

Edited by James II
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII
6 hours ago, James II said:

It has everything to do with it. The second part would have never happened had you not went around the normal game mechanics the rest of us had, and benefited a group that has a gross advantage, by using your admin powers to help them, that would have otherwise not been available.

The money returned to BK, was also not last in BK bank, it should be returned to the previous bank, if that bank is deleted then it should go to the current bank that member is in. You elected, again, to help them. In your rule you are extremely vague, and elected to return to someone that the money did not belong to at all. Even by your account, you circumvented two previous owners, in favor of one. The very same group you elected, unfairly, to help with your administrative powers before

That's two times you chose a side, and bent your own rules to extremes for them. The consistency of abuse of the power is there. I understand you're the administrator and can do whatever the hell you want with your game, but surely you see you went far, and when way out of your way to give help to one particular group, on two occasions. That is unprecedented.

EDIT: You should be deleting that money from the BK bank and putting it in EM's bank.

Even if you could prove that money belong too BK, which you shouldn't because none of us have the same benefit, the bank was three times removed at the very least. You went wayyyy back. The bias is clear, and if you are certain you aren't being bias, then certainly you have the power to see how the perception looks, and that in retrospect, you were wrong to do so.

You know, trading things around that are stolen, doesn't make them unstolen. What you are saying makes no sense. It doesn't really matter how far removed it is.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Your premise, that it belongs to BK in the first place, is exactly what is in question here. Therefore your argument is circular. 

The money sent by George to EM to pay off George's debts belongs to BK. EM himself agreed to that premise and most rational folks have agreed to the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

how was I do know that would be seen as hiding an alliance bank, even when you check my logs when i came out of VM i sold what i had left and bought more cities. I mean damn Alex said it was an odd case as i spent 7 billion on cities, how would that be seen as hiding an alliance bank when i spent a huge chuck of it lol

I'm told you that because BK set you up. Someone threatened to declare war on you triggering you to enter vacation mode. They then reported you with the lie you were hiding an alliance bank to Alex. They know Alex will probably take quick action (because he always does with Coalition B for some reason) and cite a vague rule to justify returning a chunk of your resources to BK. They know Alex makes flawed decisions and they used him to get some money from you.

@Alex

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

The money sent by George to EM to pay off George's debts belongs to BK. EM himself agreed to that premise and most rational folks have agreed to the same. 

Because you were threatening to roll him out if the game if he didn't agree to it....

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, James II said:

Because you were threatening to roll him out if the game if he didn't agree to it....

I told him he would be rolled or we could come to an agreement. Cooler heads prevailed and we worked out an agreement, despite everyone else's attempts to change the nature of the agreement or attempting to roll him anyway, I kept up to my end of the bargain, brought BK around and convinced everyone who wanted blood to sit the hell down and gave EM his NAP, and time to pay the money back. 

Moreover, I even offered EM protection for the time period. Nothing on the situation changed from when the agreement was signed to when it came into force. If EM wishes to renege on agreement that we worked on for a couple of weeks which included a mea culpa from the NPO and BK regarding the original claim he was in on it with George, and recognising that this was a blank slate where commitments that were made and followed through. 

Furthermore, I did speak to BK on EM's behalf with regards to George, and BK said the choice was left to their community and to draw the line around George, I did. I also furthermore supported rolling George and BK's right to do so, but nevertheless I followed through on the commitment I made to EM with this as well. 

If EM's reneging on his deal and you're protecting him, you are protecting folks who go back on their word. Feel free trying to ship those logs without the entire conversation around though! It is truly wonderful to see you twist yourself into so many positions James, and I look forward to the fireworks that will eventually come to pass during peace negotiations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I told him he would be rolled or we could come to an agreement. 

At least you admit you threatened to roll him out of the game if he didn't agree.

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII
49 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

Your premise, that it belongs to BK in the first place, is exactly what is in question here. Therefore your argument is circular. 

8 hours ago, James II said:

Even if you could prove that money belong too BK, which you shouldn't because none of us have the same benefit, the bank was three times removed at the very least. You went wayyyy back. The bias is clear, and if you are certain you aren't being bias, then certainly you have the power to see how the perception looks, and that in retrospect, you were wrong to do so.

1 hour ago, Karl VII said:

You know, trading things around that are stolen, doesn't make them unstolen. What you are saying makes no sense. It doesn't really matter how far removed it is.

 

maybe read what i respond to first @CandyShi

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, James II said:

At least you admit you threatened to roll him out of the game if he didn't agree.

At no point during the negotiations did I threaten him with rolling him out of the game. I did say we will roll him and military actions are on the table, but to prevent that we can work out a deal. That's quite common when dealing with folks sitting on embezzled/stolen funds, is it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

At no point during the negotiations did I threaten him with rolling him out of the game. I did say we will roll him and military actions are on the table, but to prevent that we can work out a deal. That's quite common when dealing with folks sitting on embezzled/stolen funds, is it not?

Ah negotiations. The dream that ever eludes me....

  • Haha 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Ah negotiations. The dream that ever eludes me....

This post is hilarious.

 

Also, EM is annoying brat and I'm not surprised what became of the situation.

  • Haha 3

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elijah MikaelsonYesterday at 5:21 PM
do something then 
Leo the GreatYesterday at 5:21 PM
Don’t worry we will
Elijah MikaelsonYesterday at 5:21 PM
you are the one who talked about rolling my nation after last payment
i will be waiting a long time im sure

This is not a quote that aged well, gotta say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Dryad said:

Alex should have checked where the bank contents belong before returning it anywhere imo

No.

 

As Alex stated himself; When you deposit something into an alliance bank, the resources belong to the alliance in the eyes of the game. Yakuza then decide to do with their resources what they want to do (send to BK for safekeeping). At some point, the BK bank then sends a huge amount to a nation and that nation goes into VM. That's BK trying to hide a bank, so 20% is lost and rest returned to the active game.

 

From a player perspective, it's very very difference, but it's on us to play within the rules and Alex to enforce the rules. Alex shouldn't couldn't wouldn't have done anything different. It's US, the players, who have created bank systems and what not. Those systems, however smart they are and however much we think of said resources as our own, in the eyes of the game, it's now the alliance's resources.

 

WE have to play by the rules of the game, Alex doesn't have to play by our rules.

"Don't argue with members of The Golden Horde. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Probably someone on OWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Leo the Great said:

Elijah MikaelsonYesterday at 5:21 PM
do something then 
Leo the GreatYesterday at 5:21 PM
Don’t worry we will
Elijah MikaelsonYesterday at 5:21 PM
you are the one who talked about rolling my nation after last payment
i will be waiting a long time im sure

This is not a quote that aged well, gotta say. 

Petition to rename Vacation Mode to Elijah Mode.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2019 at 3:27 PM, Elijah Mikaelson said:

Now I know Roquentin and yourself had spoken many times about rolling my nation and forcing me to quit, even to go as far to claim if I re-roll you will force me to delete again and again.

You make this seem like a pretty reasonable position on their parts with the balance of your posts.

On 12/7/2019 at 4:00 PM, Akuryo said:

It boils down to, once something is put in an alliance bank it's no longer yours, and so if you had 200m safekeep and I gave it to you and you VMd, you could get reported for hiding the bank. 

Because in Alex's eyes that belongs to the bank now, the player lost all claim when it was deposited.

Was this confusing before?  The people who manage the bank often track how much each player has deposited, is leaving in the bank and is withdrawing. But as far as game rules it's as specific as it gets and you broke that rule just like that one  commandment regarding theft.

15 hours ago, James II said:

At least you admit you threatened to roll him out of the game if he didn't agree.

Why wouldn't they do this if the stolen materials and funds aren't recovered?  Damage equal to that amount.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2019 at 8:55 PM, Deulos said:

Entering vacation mode was your mistake. Why didn't you set up someone or a offshore alliance to quickly stage that money away? You had to know BK was desperate for any cash they could get their hands on since their resources were drained from being in a 6 month war.

I do have to wonder. Whatever makes you think we are running out of money and resources? It's really quite easy to sustain sitting on people. If you're waiting for us to run out of money and resources, I'm sorry to tell you, you'll be waiting for a LOOOONG time champ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

At some point, the BK bank then sends a huge amount to a nation and that nation goes into VM. That's BK trying to hide a bank, so 20% is lost and rest returned to the active game.

I would actually argue that's the player going into VM hiding the bank. Your argument was that the moment something is deposited it belongs to the alliance, you can make the same argument for players: that the moment it's withdrawn it's the players.

I get your point that there is limited information you can read out of the game-state, but that doesn't make the solution that was applied any better. Alex could have asked EM to which alliance bank he would have liked his stuff to be sent, from the game alone it doesn't become clear whether that's the BK offshore, yakuza or Fark (his alliance at the time). Just picking the one that sent EM the stuff is a lazy solution, I don't think it asks too much to shoot someone a message if there is billions involved and I don't see this as being outside the scope of what moderation could look like.

Edited by Dryad
  • Upvote 2

Biggest-Bloc-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tarroc said:

I do have to wonder. Whatever makes you think we are running out of money and resources? It's really quite easy to sustain sitting on people. If you're waiting for us to run out of money and resources, I'm sorry to tell you, you'll be waiting for a LOOOONG time champ.

Nah, we're just waiting for you guys to give us terms :)

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alex quit ignoring your over reach and fix it.

 

Edit: you can't fix it because you already revealed bank to bank transactions but you can at least delete the resources and bank from BK and give it to EM or the alliance bank of his choosing (without revealing it to the rest of orbis this time) even though the money was his and not an alliances bank(your rule says nothing about personal money). According to the new precedent anyone who goes into VM with money is hiding a bank. Better get to deleting and sending it all to BK if this is the new standard.

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, James II said:

@Alex quit ignoring your over reach and fix it.

 

Edit: you can't fix it because you already revealed bank to bank transactions but you can at least delete the resources and bank from BK and give it to EM or the alliance bank of his choosing (without revealing it to the rest of orbis this time) even though the money was his and not an alliances bank(your rule says nothing about personal money). According to the new president anyone who goes into VM with money is hiding a bank. Better get to deleting and sending it all to BK if this is the new standard.

New presidents are the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.