Jump to content

Rules Clarification / Slot Filling


Lu Xun
 Share

Recommended Posts

The relevant rules are here:

 

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.

 

North Point is currently attacking the enemy of their enemy (KERCHTOG$) in such a way as to deny their enemy (BKNPO / OD+TC) the ability to deploy attackers.

 

According to Partisan's (Prefonteen's) interpretation of game rules, the second sentence is joined with the first sentence as an "and" conjunction, meaning that the first line of "attacking someone with the intention of fighting them" supersedes the second line. This legitimizes North Point's tactic, even if given previous moderation rulings, it seems as though these wars violate the second clause.

 

I would like to have clarification on how the war declaration rules work. For instance, sticking to the first line only, it would be possible for me to have friends constantly nuke me or naval me, when my set-up means that I take very little cash damage, even when I'm beiged, due to my low infra. This could render me extremely difficult to declare on.

 

For instances of "war slot filling" violations, I will list a few NP targets:

 

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=41349&display=war (Gladius, GoB bank at war with BKNPO)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=70736&display=war (Sanreizan bank at war with BKNPO, took last slot)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=41349&display=war (Imladris, used to be Valinor bank)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=6286&display=war (Valinor / CoS bank)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=13052&display=war (Guardian high gov)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=32050&display=war (TKR high-city fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=44276&display=war (House Stark fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=51491&display=war (TKR high-city fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=9788&display=war (CoA high-city fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=26598&display=war (CoS high-city fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=9433&display=war (CoS high-city fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=117704&display=war (T$ bank)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=24625&display=war (e$ bank)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=17961&display=war (T$ fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=30061&display=war (T$ fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=28546&display=war (T$ fighter)

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=25539&display=war (T$ fighter)

 

I can go on, but there's a huge number of incidents to report.

 

Edit: I want to highlight this screenshot which shows NP's effective intent:

 

unknown.png

 

This shows NP's actual intent. I.e, there's a plan to give members of KERCHTOG$ time to rebuild, and they intend to "keep up appearances".

 

In other words, there is collaboration between NP and its targets in terms of targeting.

Edited by Inst
  • Upvote 2

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my part, the definition of war slot filling as "allowed to declare war on nations to prevent them from being attacked by other nations" applies to what's going on right now. Moreover, even beiging triggers the second line.

 

The key factor is that NP is at war with BKNPO, and they are hitting the enemies of BKNPO in a way that disrupts or otherwise prevents BKNPO from engaging BKNPO's enemies. This is viable within the war system, but not necessarily within the moderation system.

 

The clarification needed right now is whether this is permissible, and if so, what are the limits on this? For instance, NPO and BK could declare themselves two separate fronts, then declare on each other to block slots while beiging, especially with depleted and decimated fighters.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it would appear NP is fighting, so .... not really, the intention isnt so others cant fight, it would appear the intention is for loot to fight IQ via beige, aka ending the war, once the beige expires IQ can reslot them as the war system is meant to work 

0b3897cd640f95254329f7a2d45d8c77b1c120e.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, the beiging can allow T$ etc to replane.

 

I think the underlying issue is that we're all waiting on Alex to launch a definitive judgment on this tactic. If it's valid, then TCWsphere (minus currently TCW) can mass deploy this tactic despite essentially being on the same side as KERCHTOG$. That results in an OD (BKNPO) loss because of the sabotage. If it's invalid, then the war just continues as is, probably with KERCHTOG$ coming to the surrender table soon since they're out of cards.

 

Strictly speaking, NP is triggering the second line of the War Slot filling clause. BKNPO has deployed some fighters to slot-fill less competently suppressed opponents, although they'll have difficulty keeping the target wholly away from being able to restock from beige.

 

The beiging itself triggers the second line of the War Slot filling clause, since NP is hitting the enemy of its enemy.

 

But of course, this is ultimately up to Alex to decide.

Edited by Inst

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with proving intent or that it's some conspiracy is that doing so is exceedingly difficult. Especially when I have leaders asking me to stop.

Screenshot_20200109-222154.jpg

I suppose, it's possible, that I'm just so bad at it the people in supposedly conspiring with don't even know. 

But Occam's Razor suggests an alliance as frequently aggressive as mine is, run by someone who is not represented properly in politics by either side, is just going outright rogue for its own benefit. 

It's no secret I don't agree with either side and have always preferred a path where NP could eventually be paperless or that I love the idea of causing chaos.

The basic evidence such as above as well as a very basic character reference most people already know about me lead to a different conclusion than the one reached by people worried about problems caused by an entity acting in chaos. If the erratic behavior is causing you problems, that's kind of the point. 

If that's against the rules, then I'm not sure how the outright existence of Arrgh, Mythic, Or fallen TEst isn't in and of itself rule breaking.

Edited by Akuryo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

The problem with proving intent or that it's some conspiracy is that doing so is exceedingly difficult. Especially when I have leaders asking me to stop.

Screenshot_20200109-222154.jpg

I suppose, it's possible, that I'm just so bad at it the people in supposedly conspiring with don't even know. 

But Occam's Razor suggests an alliance as frequently aggressive as mine is, run by someone who is not represented properly in politics by either side, is just going outright rogue for its own benefit. 

It's no secret I don't agree with either side and have always preferred a path where NP could eventually be paperless or that I love the idea of causing chaos.

The basic evidence such as above as well as a very basic character reference most people already know about me lead to a different conclusion than the one reached by people worried about problems caused by an entity acting in chaos. If the erratic behavior is causing you problems, that's kind of the point. 

If that's against the rules, then I'm not sure how the outright existence of Arrgh, Mythic, Or fallen TEst isn't in and of itself rule breaking.

The question isn't intent. For instance, I CAN slot fill people against their will; anyone can do that.

 

The difference is, however, that if I slot fill people in cooperation with them, they're held liable for the rules infraction. But if I slot fill them without their knowledge, I'm the only one responsible for the rules infraction.

 

Your side generally tends to score own goals regarding this whole slot-filling thing. It is possible that Alex might rule in your favor (we just come up with sophisticated proxies to slot fill), but if not, the fact that Partisan complained about admin bias in judging your alliance's attacks on his implies he's complicit. Your discussion of CoA's perception that you're on the same side implies that you're slot-filling.

 

Also, re: Arrgh and Mythic dual-raiding, the big problem with your side is that as someone who's raided KERCHTOG$, I know what their raiding yields are like right now and the targets you're hitting don't justify raiding. Likewise, saturating slots (as many NP have done) creates a far larger probability of slot filling than just doing it solo and having people launch single hits instead of joint hits on enemy targets.

 

I'm archiving your screenshot for my purposes now. If Alex wants to go check its veracity, he has the person who sent the PM and the timestamp associated with the message.

 

imageproxy.png

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Inst said:

Problem is, the beiging can allow T$ etc to replane.

 

I think the underlying issue is that we're all waiting on Alex to launch a definitive judgment on this tactic. If it's valid, then TCWsphere (minus currently TCW) can mass deploy this tactic despite essentially being on the same side as KERCHTOG$. That results in an OD (BKNPO) loss because of the sabotage. If it's invalid, then the war just continues as is, probably with KERCHTOG$ coming to the surrender table soon since they're out of cards.

 

Strictly speaking, NP is triggering the second line of the War Slot filling clause. BKNPO has deployed some fighters to slot-fill less competently suppressed opponents, although they'll have difficulty keeping the target wholly away from being able to restock from beige.

 

The beiging itself triggers the second line of the War Slot filling clause, since NP is hitting the enemy of its enemy.

 

But of course, this is ultimately up to Alex to decide.

People actually being able to rearm a bit between rounds, what a disaster that would be! Isn't that why beige exists to begin with though? Also if raiding anyone at war with someone at war with you is against the rules, might as well remove the war system completely it adds so much confusion to the rules. Guess alliances like Arrgh which don't pay attention to "sides" would be banned as well.?

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with any "let's enable slot filling" doctrine is this:

 

Group A slot fills Group B. Group B slot fills Group C. Group C slot fills group A.


In other words, it becomes completely impossible to engage anyone in this triangle and it just shuts down warfare.

 

Other issue is that Arrgh usually doesn't slot fill; i.e, it's obvious that they're targeting raidables, not hitting husks with no raiding value.

  • Upvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Inst said:

The problem with any "let's enable slot filling" doctrine is this:

 

Group A slot fills Group B. Group B slot fills Group C. Group C slot fills group A.


In other words, it becomes completely impossible to engage anyone in this triangle and it just shuts down warfare.

 

Other issue is that Arrgh usually doesn't slot fill; i.e, it's obvious that they're targeting raidables, not hitting husks with no raiding value.

Coaltion A, which is largely just whoever NPO decided to put under that name in the stats are easy raid targets. Getting attacked by anyone in Coalition B or them deciding most of the alliances in the game are forever at war with them shouldn't do so all the best raid targets only go to them. Them attacking someone for raiding shouldn't then do so the mods don't let people keep raiding the good targets. When not at war with specific alliances and even while at war, I've always raided people inactives from either coalition for easy loot.

So pretty much this would be ban on raiding & only coalition warfare with strict sides allowed if Alex messes up this ruling.

Edit: This seemed like a discussion topic rather than a report, so should be moved or delete my responses with no warn points or long suspension. Thanks.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Madden8021 said:

I know I'm gonna get warned "and possibly suspended" for being yet again in a no discussion zone but this is total nonsense. I wasn't informed about anything for crying out loud.unknown.png

n7d01NI.png
And what does he mean about "warning this person?" They were the ones that should've WARNED me first before hand but whatever.

Well, I said what I had to say and will be waiting for my suspension from the forums. "ugh" - _ -

Thank you for letting me know who to reprimand for not following the basic "raid both sides freely" ping.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My orders were to beige Coalition A and B. I ignored the B part, since I figured it would be easier to raid broken down Coalition A folk. I figured getting some loot as well as beiging them wouldn't hurt, as I'm getting blockaded and killed by fully built up Coalition B folk, and they might get a rebuild to attack Coal B and take some heat off of NP.

You could have clarified things before deciding to post something that is just false. I am not specifically trying to help you rebuild. I'm getting loot at your expense, and maybe you can rebuild after. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archiving this as well (although I'm told the mods can view different versions of a post).

 

unknown.png

 

This implies that NP received orders from somewhere in the NP hierarchy to beige effective allies. But this, of course, requires rules clarification and a ruling on whether the actions involved are permissible.

 

At the time of posting:

 

unknown.png

 

The hierarchy above Hidelith is Anneal, Fairymoon, and Akuryo.

 

Stated (but not necessarily actual) NP hierarchy:

 

unknown.png

 

Hidelith is lower milcom, hence the only people above him would be Anneal and Akuryo.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like Inst is just trying to redefine the rules for whatever suits him, despite the fact NP is clearly fighting their opponents. Bieging is just a part of getting bank loot, and if they get time to rebuild so be it, that isn't North Points problem.

Blame Dan Schneider~

393607803_Screenshot-20190414-060815-Discord(2).jpg.7116150a8eb6a7355bc37f3f65604764.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Madden8021 said:

 

That's not your call to make. I am the leader and FA head for North Point, and I am therefore the sole arbiter of who is friend or foe. Congratulations, I've declared both sides foe, including you. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matthew The Great said:

Sounds to me like Inst is just trying to redefine the rules for whatever suits him, despite the fact NP is clearly fighting their opponents. Bieging is just a part of getting bank loot, and if they get time to rebuild so be it, that isn't North Points problem.

This is a no-discussion forum. Akuryo is entitled to post here as he is one of the accused, and Madden brought out corroborating evidence.

 

Ultimately, the matter comes out to: are you allowed to attack your allies, de facto or de jure, as long as you beige them? The assertion by Syndicate, NP, and affiliates, is yes. My counter-assertion is that from my reading and understanding of the implications of such a tactic, is no. But of course our assertions don't matter and all that matters is what Alex decides. Hence the report (because this is a report of NP practices) and request for rules clarification from Alex.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Madden8021 said:

Now I regret apologizing to YOU when you were talking about the Pantheon Bank Raid in the TKR Server that got me all flared up about. I'm still banned from their server to this very day from the downward spiral that I created over an argument that led to a ping spam ban. You still deserved that Ping Spam anyway. Maybe I should turn my downward spiral and anger towards you and North Point instead of anyone in TKR and the people I turned away within the past Year. Anywhom I'm gonna let this topic get back on the rails since I'm already uptight over this and shouldn't derail it any further.

You should chill out bro, they're just raids. And like the years, they don't stop coming and they don't stop coming! unless you're gonna be rude as hell and have too many soldiers or ships. Then they stop. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

This has to be the dumbest topic I have read, HOW can Alex warn people when they aim to beige those they are attacking therefore winning the war?

Thank you

Holy multiple variants of Hell

Why is this so inconceivable? Because people don't like how others aren't adhering to their one sided playstyle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Inst said:

This is a no-discussion forum. Akuryo is entitled to post here as he is one of the accused, and Madden brought out corroborating evidence.

 

Ultimately, the matter comes out to: are you allowed to attack your allies, de facto or de jure, as long as you beige them? The assertion by Syndicate, NP, and affiliates, is yes. My counter-assertion is that from my reading and understanding of the implications of such a tactic, is no. But of course our assertions don't matter and all that matters is what Alex decides. Hence the report (because this is a report of NP practices) and request for rules clarification from Alex.

I once got a game strike for spying an ally, even though I tried to explain I truly did not like them. The attack did no damage so I got rung up. It just shows that strikes and warns are mostly arbitrary and are generally the result of which side cries the most. And that feels like what you're trying to do here. 

  • Haha 1

STFU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

While I review the report, a reminder that this is a No-Discussion Forum, and warning points will be issued.

  • Thanks 2

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

  • Administrators

My determination here is that if you'd like to report war slot filling, you need to do so on a war-by-war basis. Sufficient evidence for me to take moderation action requires something along the lines of the following:

  • Proof that the nations at war are allies and are not fighting a "real" war (no attacks, minimal attacks)

OR

  • Evidence suggesting that the nations could be allies or are in cahoots to intentionally beige while doing minimal damage AND
  • The defender has been active since the war began and is making no effort to fight back in any way AND
  • The defender has the means to mount some sort of counter-attack (i.e. while the attacker may be doing naval attacks, the defender does have a superior air force or ground force and could conceivably have a shot at winning the war if they made any effort to do so)

So if you can report individual wars and show the latter 3 are true, there is potential for moderation action. However, in a situation where for example the attacker is doing full-force attacks, the defender is fighting back, and the attacker fights and wins the war, there's no room for me to take moderation action even if there is some back-channel intention of beiging the defender so that they have a chance to rebuild.

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

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.