Jump to content
Prefonteen

Dubious moderation.

Recommended Posts

Alex man bad

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raiding is rule breaking behavior, I'm sorry for ever trying to make a profit in my wars.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Prefonteen pls wait 3-5 business days while IQ's leaders explain their view on the situation to Alex.

If you have anymore questions, please message Roquentin#1337 on discord. This gentlemen shall deal with your complaints in the meantime.

We thank you for your understanding!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when Coalition B was defending baseball against nerfing despite it being clearly broken (and tbh it still is) I was a bit disgusted at myself to have been helping them in the war at the time. It fills me with great relief to see that the other side can go just as low. What's happening now is definitely the most blatant case of mass slot-filling since I have started playing a year ago, conducting and defending it is definitely a new low for some of the coolest and most respectable players I have gotten to know in this game and I'm a bit sad it's happening.

The slot filling rule has always sucked. In order to judge the intention of a war declaration you need to have an understanding of what's actually happening in the game and unfortunately Alex has proven time and time again that he doesn't possess this knowledge. If he did then certainly it wouldn't be only 3 wars that would be force peaced by now but all 50 or however many it is by now.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=582718

"Dusty's justification for the war was, "I bring Gifts of beige"."

I'm actually unable to understand how cases such as this, where its blatantly stated in the war reason that he is gifting beige, arent forcibly peaced yet.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=582715

"Windseeker's justification for the war was, "GET BACK UP!"."

How about this one where its obvious he is beiging to have him rebuild?

The intention behind all of these wars is gifting beige for a rebuild and most definitely not to harm whoever they are attacking, and it doesnt matter whether they do this with one ship navals or if they nuke beige them, the end result is enough beige time for a rebuild. To understand this you need to not look at what's happening in the wars and how they are fought but why people declared them on the people they did declare on. Again: this requires an understanding of the game, but it's not difficult to clearly see for someone who does understand it. Now would be a good time to read up on who is fighting who, its not difficult to see when someone attacks an ally with the intention to help.

 

Alex, please be aware that this situation is another climax in the global war and that this cheating could be a major factor in a potential turnaround.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War slot filling is taking a slot without the intention of fighting them, not exactly sure how trying to beige them would be war slot filling. We're fighting them and trying to win, just as the Hammurabi Code wanted, not sure what else you people want from me.

The intention behind it also doesn't matter, and if it did, I could argue that warring people for months on end until they quit also shouldn't be allowed because it's another important component of the game being used as a vehicle for something else. God forbid someone finds a way to counter the art of preventing beige, which honestly, I think fits the mold for being equally BS as those who disagree with giving them free beige.

Clearly there's not an issue with me giving people beige without their consent (isn't it like that with any war lmao?), otherwise those other wars would have been cancelled too. I am just here because of an unfair sense of judgement regarding another war with someone else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the rough situation as it is:

 

NP is at war with BK / BoC / Camelot since one of their new members took the BoC bank.

 

T$ is at war with BK / Camelot.

 

OD's (BKNPO) military control is contingent on keeping opponents out of beige and keeping them deplaned.

 

So obviously, NP hitting T$ and beiging them, is advantageous to them as they are helping the enemy of an enemy rebuild their military assets.

 

====

 

Now, let's look again to what the rules are:

 

https://politicsandwar.com/rules/

 

War Slot & Espionage Filling

Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule.

Moderation discretion must be applied when interpreting and enforcing this rule. An example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to fight and win the war.

 

 

The rule being violated is "you are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations". NP slotting T$, beyond merely increasing the strength of BKNPO's enemies, is denying BKNPO the ability to counter this tactic by bringing someone of their own to keep the T$ opponent down.

 

In essence, this is the same as Joe Baker getting slot filled earlier in this war (which means any time within the last year, hardy har har) to prevent others from raiding him. All wars with 3 NP slot fillers should be taken out and the parties involved warned. Wars with less than 3 NP slot fillers should also be likely taken out, as they aren't providing a legitimate reason to engage, and that they've more or less disclosed the real purpose of hitting T$ at this time.

 

====

 

 

Also, since why not, #banNPO2020

Edited by Inst
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dryad said:

Back when Coalition B was defending baseball against nerfing despite it being clearly broken (and tbh it still is) I was a bit disgusted at myself to have been helping them in the war at the time. It fills me with great relief to see that the other side can go just as low. What's happening now is definitely the most blatant case of mass slot-filling since I have started playing a year ago, conducting and defending it is definitely a new low for some of the coolest and most respectable players I have gotten to know in this game and I'm a bit sad it's happening.

The slot filling rule has always sucked. In order to judge the intention of a war declaration you need to have an understanding of what's actually happening in the game and unfortunately Alex has proven time and time again that he doesn't possess this knowledge. If he did then certainly it wouldn't be only 3 wars that would be force peaced by now but all 50 or however many it is by now.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=582718

"Dusty's justification for the war was, "I bring Gifts of beige"."

I'm actually unable to understand how cases such as this, where its blatantly stated in the war reason that he is gifting beige, arent forcibly peaced yet.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=582715

"Windseeker's justification for the war was, "GET BACK UP!"."

How about this one where its obvious he is beiging to have him rebuild?

The intention behind all of these wars is gifting beige for a rebuild and most definitely not to harm whoever they are attacking, and it doesnt matter whether they do this with one ship navals or if they nuke beige them, the end result is enough beige time for a rebuild. To understand this you need to not look at what's happening in the wars and how they are fought but why people declared them on the people they did declare on. Again: this requires an understanding of the game, but it's not difficult to clearly see for someone who does understand it. Now would be a good time to read up on who is fighting who, its not difficult to see when someone attacks an ally with the intention to help.

 

Alex, please be aware that this situation is another climax in the global war and that this cheating could be a major factor in a potential turnaround.

By definition, this is not cheating. NP's motivations are their own. So long as the war is being fought with the purpose of beiging (which it is), this 1:1 equals standard raiding practices which have been accepted norms for a long time now. Unless the rules are rephrased, your gripe with the action is irrelevant to its validity as a legitimate move within the boundaries of the game rules set by alex.

I'll also note that with all the mass reports we are going down a very slippery slope where the gaming element is being taken entirely out of the IC environment. It's getting stale. Some folks would do well to save using moderation as a weapon for actual cheating.

40 minutes ago, Inst said:

Here's the rough situation as it is:

 

NP is at war with BK / BoC / Camelot since one of their new members took the BoC bank.

 

T$ is at war with BK / Camelot.

 

OD's (BKNPO) military control is contingent on keeping opponents out of beige and keeping them deplaned.

 

So obviously, NP hitting T$ and beiging them, is advantageous to them as they are helping the enemy of an enemy rebuild their military assets.

 

====

 

Now, let's look again to what the rules are:

 

https://politicsandwar.com/rules/

 

War Slot & Espionage Filling

Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations. You are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations. This same rule applies with spies and espionage operations. Knowingly participating in having your war or spy slots filled is also considered a violation of this rule.

Moderation discretion must be applied when interpreting and enforcing this rule. An example of behavior violating the rules would be declaring war on a nation and sending attacks with minimal units, or using 'Fortify', to appear to be fighting a war, when in reality the attacker has no intention to fight and win the war.

 

 

The rule being violated is "you are not allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations". NP slotting T$, beyond merely increasing the strength of BKNPO's enemies, is denying BKNPO the ability to counter this tactic by bringing someone of their own to keep the T$ opponent down.

 

In essence, this is the same as Joe Baker getting slot filled earlier in this war (which means any time within the last year, hardy har har) to prevent others from raiding him. All wars with 3 NP slot fillers should be taken out and the parties involved warned. Wars with less than 3 NP slot fillers should also be likely taken out, as they aren't providing a legitimate reason to engage, and that they've more or less disclosed the real purpose of hitting T$ at this time.

 

====

 

 

Also, since why not, #banNPO2020

The quote you highlight is in direct reference to the sentence preceeded by it:

"Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them". That is the definition of slot filling. If the war mechanic is used to beige (which by definition means trying to win the war), then that constitutes a valid war.

You being disadvantaged by the situation is irrelevant to whether or not the rules have been broken, which they haven't. If anything, beige prevention (which has been employed en masse by coalition B ) comes closer to war slot filling than this.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lack of conjunction specifying that the former line takes precedence and the sentence only qualifies the second.

 

Put it another way, if we go by your interpretation, it should be allowed to attack your allies and so on so forth, or have dummy blocs (treatyless). You are still aiming to beige the target because you're dumping in naval attacks / nukes, but at the same time you're preventing opponents from engaging you.

 

Or, let's put it in another case. The Joe Baker slot fill was ruled as slot filling. But if Joe Baker's allies had launched a bunch of navals, eventually beiging him and then returning the bank held by Joe Baker to Joe baker, would this be slot filling?

 

Applying the Kantian categorical imperative, your slot filling definition would result in chaos. The relationship between the two sentences mentioned is not an AND relationship qualifying the first sentence. It is an OR definition defining two different cases of slot filling.

Edited by Inst
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Prefonteen Question:

You are saying that allies beiging each other in the standard raiding manner, which has been accepted for years, is completely fine. If that is how you see it then why haven't you used this strategy before? People in KERCHTOG have been fishing for beige for a long time now, but this is the first time they are straight up beiging each other among allies. Why didnt you do this before?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mean I can't raid half the alliances in the game if I war anyone who is at war with them? These rules make no sense and seems like random strikes being handed out to reward people who complain to the mods for help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dryad said:

@Prefonteen Question:

You are saying that allies beiging each other in the standard raiding manner, which has been accepted for years, is completely fine. If that is how you see it then why haven't you used this strategy before? People in KERCHTOG have been fishing for beige for a long time now, but this is the first time they are straight up beiging each other among allies. Why didnt you do this before?

North Point wasn't allied to t$ when the hits occurred. North Point was aligned more to our opposition, but was (for whatever reason, I don't care) attacked by our enemies. North Point then decided on its own to hit us and beige us for their own reasons.

Beige is a valid war mechanic, and north point is fighting. Your question is based on the premise that we were allied.

With regards to beige fishing: Again- using the war mechanics to (creatively) fight back against a superior force intent on keeping you down indefinitely shouldn't really be a moderation issue. It's within the rules of the game- you are at war and have the option to beige or not. Its up to your members whether they do so. We can not affect that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dryad said:

@Prefonteen Question:

You are saying that allies beiging each other in the standard raiding manner, which has been accepted for years, is completely fine. If that is how you see it then why haven't you used this strategy before? People in KERCHTOG have been fishing for beige for a long time now, but this is the first time they are straight up beiging each other among allies. Why didnt you do this before?

Mythic was declaring on both sides earlier despite being allied with Coalition B; so you guys thought it was valid to raid both sides at least. Also don’t think he’s talking about treaty partners, but people who can be considered on the same side with a judgement call based on mutual enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

North Point wasn't allied to t$ when the hits occurred. North Point was aligned more to our opposition, but was (for whatever reason, I don't care) attacked by our enemies. North Point then decided on its own to hit us and beige us for their own reasons.

Beige is a valid war mechanic, and north point is fighting. Your question is based on the premise that we were allied.

With regards to beige fishing: Again- using the war mechanics to (creatively) fight back against a superior force intent on keeping you down indefinitely shouldn't really be a moderation issue. It's within the rules of the game- you are at war and have the option to beige or not. Its up to your members whether they do so. We can not affect that.

Nice, so you would agree that the "allied"-part is important and makes a significant difference? I can live with that a lot better than people claiming that beiging is just fine and it doesn't matter what the context is; that mentality would have tremendously negative effects on all wars to come.

Your assessment of North Point not being allied is questionable. They were fighting on the Coalition A side of the war prior to their surrender and have now essentially reentered on the same side which t$ is on. Much more interesting to me though is this:

"North Point was aligned more to our opposition, but was (for whatever reason, I don't care) attacked by our enemies"

You are not of the opinion that this makes you de facto allied in at least a "working together against a shared enemy"-sense, which is relevant to gameplay?

In the case that two sides, not allied to each other, have a common enemy you think it's okay for them to attack and beige each other for rebuild purposes (see war reasons such as "GET BACK UP!") aimed at beating that shared enemy? Weren't you in a similar position when Coalition B decided to take t$ out? It took a while until you were publicly one coalition considered to be allies yet you didn't decide to mass-beige KERCHTOG at the beginning, why is that?

And I agree, beige fishing against enemies is completely fine imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dryad said:

Your assessment of North Point not being allied is questionable. They were fighting on the Coalition A side of the war prior to their surrender

OWR. NPO. Precedent had been set, as long as t$ and NP aren’t directly allied & one is stomping the other, it’s perfectly fine. 

 

/thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's certainly not easy to make determinations of war slot filling, and in the dozens of reports I got I only issued 2 strikes yesterday.

It appears to me that there's a concerted effort to beige a group of players simply for their benefit. In doing so, the war slots are being filled with "nice" wars instead of "real" wars, which in my interpretation violates the War Slot Filling rule.

I only issued strikes where it was clear that the defender was active, had the capability (some military advantage) to fight back, and was simply choosing not to (i.e. it's not a real war.) I was very particular about the strikes that I issued and did my due diligence.

In the end, there will always be disputes about war slot filling and what does and does not qualify. There's no way to moderate it perfectly, and ultimately what the solution will be is the removal of beige entirely so that there's no incentive to "game" the system.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Alex said:

In the end, there will always be disputes about war slot filling and what does and does not qualify. There's no way to moderate it perfectly, and ultimately what the solution will be is the removal of beige entirely so that there's no incentive to "game" the system.

If beige is removed, how do you build back up ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Alex said:

~Snip~

That's the biggest case of laziness I've ever seen from a admin of a game... Are you trying to kill your game, @Alex? That's a lazy solution and you yourself know it have to know that. You've allowed a war to go on for months in which one sides basically sat on without beiging(also slot filling) and removed beige rebuild for the other, killing the game and many peoples care for the game.

Youve listed other ideas one such idea said before was that all wars will end in beige that's a better solution in all honesty then killing beige, despite it also being a lazy ass solution. There's so many ways to circumvent and fix the issues, yet your lazy ass plan is something even the most average of players can tell you will kill your game...

Pathetic ass excuse of a reason to be lazy.

Edited by Dusty
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex said:

It's certainly not easy to make determinations of war slot filling, and in the dozens of reports I got I only issued 2 strikes yesterday.

It appears to me that there's a concerted effort to beige a group of players simply for their benefit. In doing so, the war slots are being filled with "nice" wars instead of "real" wars, which in my interpretation violates the War Slot Filling rule.

I only issued strikes where it was clear that the defender was active, had the capability (some military advantage) to fight back, and was simply choosing not to (i.e. it's not a real war.) I was very particular about the strikes that I issued and did my due diligence.

In the end, there will always be disputes about war slot filling and what does and does not qualify. There's no way to moderate it perfectly, and ultimately what the solution will be is the removal of beige entirely so that there's no incentive to "game" the system.

War slot filling is an extremely difficult problem to fix. I have war slot filled in other games for tactical purposes, doing more or less what Akuryo-Partisan has done (create a CB to make it look real, do real damage exchange to maintain the appearance of reality).

 

In other games, though, the line needed is usually collaboration or proof of collaboration. North Point has provided that in spades with the messages shown, as well as their intent to deceive.

 

The operating line on the legal case is "to prevent others from declaring on the target", i.e, the two factors become the fact that hitting someone who is both a de facto ally and an ally by agreement (check the Madden screenshots) the targets involved can be forced into beige and allowed to rebuild.

 

My understanding of the situation is that North Point acted as a trial of whether their new tactic (beiging de facto allies) is valid. If it is valid, and workable limitations have been set by administration, it is now permissible for their coalition to employ the tactic en masse. On a limited level, i.e, if it's only North Point doing it, it is easily counterable and jammable by the opposing coalition. However, if this is conducted by the entire enemy coalition, it becomes extremely difficult to counter and effectively ends the war in the favor of the TKR-T$-TCW coalition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dusty said:

That's the biggest case of laziness I've ever seen from a admin of a game... Are you trying to kill your game, @Alex? That's a lazy solution and you yourself know it have to know that. You've allowed a war to go on for months in which one sides basically sat on without beiging(also slot filling) and removed beige rebuild for the other, killing the game and many peoples care for the game.

Youve listed other ideas one such idea said before was that all wars will end in beige that's a better solution in all honesty then killing beige, despite it also being a lazy ass solution. There's so many ways to circumvent and fix the issues, yet your lazy ass plan is something even the most average of players can tell you will kill your game...

Pathetic ass excuse of a reason to be lazy.

It's not a lazy solution, it's the only feasible solution. Right now the incentives in wars do not line up in a logical way, because beige is so favorable to the loser, attackers don't want to beige their opponents generally.

I'm not proposing it as a standalone solution, but this is not the game suggestions forum, this is the moderation support forum. Unless you really want me to make a judgement on every war to interpret intent and whether it's war slot filling or not (spoiler alert - neither myself nor you nor anyone wants that) there needs to be a mechanical fix to make it an objective issue and not a subjective one.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Alex said:

It's not a lazy solution, it's the only feasible solution. Right now the incentives in wars do not line up in a logical way, because beige is so favorable to the loser, attackers don't want to beige their opponents generally.

I'm not proposing it as a standalone solution, but this is not the game suggestions forum, this is the moderation support forum. Unless you really want me to make a judgement on every war to interpret intent and whether it's war slot filling or not (spoiler alert - neither myself nor you nor anyone wants that) there needs to be a mechanical fix to make it an objective issue and not a subjective one.

I want to make this very clear. You do not need to interpret intent. The evidence of intent is already there, our side can provide significant evidence that this is policy on behalf of NP.

 

Preliminarily, you have already ruled that some wars NP launched were in violation of the slot filling rules. This simply has to be extended to make clear that NP / TKR-T$-KETOG cannot declare on its own allies for the purposes of preventing BKNPO from keeping its enemies depleted and controlled.

 

What we are requesting in the short-term is a moratorium on NP's tactic, i.e, that they and all in the game are not permitted to conduct this tactic while arguments are made by both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, there's gonna be a long peace when this done, @Alex, and it's the perfect time to bring out big changes to the war system. After nearly a year of war, people are gonna wanna chill.

I'm happy to be a catalyst that starts change, and in the meantime I shall tell my members they are to use trademark Desuran raiding only! The kind that uses ways too much force for the reason of "Lol". I'm actually kinda bad at raiding because I fight too hard, so copying me seems like a good solution here at the cost of some profit. 😄

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.