Jump to content

Piss Face Credits


Lu Xun
 Share

Recommended Posts

Piss Face spent 4 credits to enable him to buy 2 cities with Weebunism's stolen bank. These should be refunded.

I want to point out that Piss Face's buying of cities was 100% legal as it was permitted by the game mechanics. That he lost his 2 additional cities is somewhat unfair. Moreover, he spent credits to permit the purchase of the second city.

 

Either patch city buying (and other purchases while in VM) and refund credits or restore the cities.

Edited by Inst
  • Like 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
11 hours ago, Inst said:

Piss Face spent 4 credits to enable him to buy 2 cities with Weebunism's stolen bank. These should be refunded.

I want to point out that Piss Face's buying of cities was 100% legal as it was permitted by the game mechanics. That he lost his 2 additional cities is somewhat unfair. Moreover, he spent credits to permit the purchase of the second city.

 

Either patch city buying (and other purchases while in VM) and refund credits or restore the cities.

He used stolen money which had to be returned per the Game Rules. It would hardly be fair to allow him to keep the benefits of the $500,000,000 he stole breaking the rules.

As for the Credits, I don't have a problem with that, but why isn't he making a post himself (why are you doing it?)

  • Upvote 1

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

1 hour ago, Alex said:

He used stolen money which had to be returned per the Game Rules. It would hardly be fair to allow him to keep the benefits of the $500,000,000 he stole breaking the rules.

As for the Credits, I don't have a problem with that, but why isn't he making a post himself (why are you doing it?)

He is in VM after all, isn't he? If you want him to come and post here, I can ask him to come.

 

I also wish to highlight that he broke the rules not by stealing the Weebunism bank, but by going into VM after doing it, and that's not an explicit rule but the current rules interpretation. Bank theft, while highly frowned upon and disliked, is not forbidden by the game rules or the T&C.

 

And let us say, for instance, he bought the cities while outside of VM. Would the cities still be returned? Or, if he had correctly executed his bank heist and moved the bank into a dummy AA, then cleared out the bank by moving the dummy AA bank into a third alliance before hitting VM, you wouldn't have either deleted the cities or returned the bank.

 

I also wish to note that he could have achieved the stated request of "removing Weebunism's bank from the game" if he had deleted his nation after the theft, as deleting a nation is also something that can be done in VM.

 

But of course, I don't control piss face and I only tried helping him after we discovered that he had fled with the bank. I also contacted Weebunism afterwards to see if they wanted peace. It's not petty larceny in this case, but a political move.

 

===

 

I do understand that every moderation action is a potential headache given the highly polarized state of this game. Whatever happens, one lynch mob or another will begin baying to the moon. I understand that refunding the credits is the path of least resistance, of course, but it might be at least reasonable to allow him to keep the cities he bought in VM, unless this is judged to be a bug.

  • Upvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hello!

12 hours ago, Alex said:

He used stolen money which had to be returned per the Game Rules. It would hardly be fair to allow him to keep the benefits of the $500,000,000 he stole breaking the rules.

if stealing a bank is to be against the rules, can you also enforce this against people who simply move a bank to another alliance? or any other method that protects the bank from being raided after being stolen?

12 hours ago, Alex said:

As for the Credits, I don't have a problem with that, but why isn't he making a post himself (why are you doing it?)

im lazy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, piss face said:

hello!

if stealing a bank is to be against the rules, can you also enforce this against people who simply move a bank to another alliance? or any other method that protects the bank from being raided after being stolen?

im lazy

I'll point out that it has been established policy for Alex to return 80% of the bank in the event of a bank theft. What makes your case unusual is that you, well, we, made an active effort to destroy the bank before Alex could return it.

 

Alex's response was just to force move the bank and send you into negative resources. I suppose we COULD attempt arguments that the bank shouldn't be returned, but that's against precedent. What's in question is what happens with the credits and what happens with your cities.

 

Alex seems inclined to just refund the credits, whereas I'd argue that the cities were no longer part of  the bank once the bank was returned. To avoid drama with Weebunism complaining, it might simply be better to let you keep the cities instead, but that seems to be more than what Alex wants to allow.

 

===

 

We also need to ask from Alex, was a bug exploited? Should piss face have been allowed to purchase cities while in beige? If he isn't, then you have a good point, but if he is allowed to purchase cities while VMed, he should be allowed to keep the cities.

Edited by Inst

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
16 hours ago, piss face said:

if stealing a bank is to be against the rules, can you also enforce this against people who simply move a bank to another alliance? or any other method that protects the bank from being raided after being stolen?

Stealing a bank isn't against the rules - using Vacation Mode to protect a bank from being raided is.

15 hours ago, Inst said:

Alex seems inclined to just refund the credits, whereas I'd argue that the cities were no longer part of  the bank once the bank was returned. To avoid drama with Weebunism complaining, it might simply be better to let you keep the cities instead, but that seems to be more than what Alex wants to allow.

We also need to ask from Alex, was a bug exploited? Should piss face have been allowed to purchase cities while in beige? If he isn't, then you have a good point, but if he is allowed to purchase cities while VMed, he should be allowed to keep the cities.

The Credits were refunded the other day.

As for whether or not nations should be allowed to spend money in VM, probably not, I just never bothered to disable every action (it was never an issue until this point.) I disagree that spending the money is a valid defense against the rule - going into Vacation Mode with the funds is against the rules and so regardless of what you do after that, the funds that were hidden/protected with VM must be returned with 20% deleted according to the rules.

  • Upvote 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

@Alex

 

The only loose end seems to be that piss face is listed as having 4 credits spent (account cap). It's probably just cosmetic because I doubt he'll find another use for the credits before he comes out of VM, which will be after the credit reset.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
8 hours ago, Alex said:

Stealing a bank isn't against the rules - using Vacation Mode to protect a bank from being raided is.

The Credits were refunded the other day.

As for whether or not nations should be allowed to spend money in VM, probably not, I just never bothered to disable every action (it was never an issue until this point.) I disagree that spending the money is a valid defense against the rule - going into Vacation Mode with the funds is against the rules and so regardless of what you do after that, the funds that were hidden/protected with VM must be returned with 20% deleted according to the rules.

I am having a hard time understanding you @Alex you are saying that you should follow the rules.

1) Pooball reported a bug you did nothing he cheated in billions then he gets banned
2) Camelot knowingly abused a bug letting people get resources when blockaded, due to the upgrade of resources being given to the last nation that leaves the alliance,  

Then this iss with a guy buying cities after entering VM, you remove his cities, remove the funds and fair you give him his credits back (not sure if you gave him real money as im sure he bought them with real money, or you just gave him credits) 

But tell me Alex. Why punish Pooball for abusing a bug, punish Piss face for using a bug (As for whether or not nations should be allowed to spend money in VM, probably not, I just never bothered to disable every action (it was never an issue until this point.) I disagree that spending the money is a valid defence against the rule) However you did not punish Camelot for abusing bugs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
17 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

I am having a hard time understanding you @Alex you are saying that you should follow the rules.

1) Pooball reported a bug you did nothing he cheated in billions then he gets banned
2) Camelot knowingly abused a bug letting people get resources when blockaded, due to the upgrade of resources being given to the last nation that leaves the alliance,  

Then this iss with a guy buying cities after entering VM, you remove his cities, remove the funds and fair you give him his credits back (not sure if you gave him real money as im sure he bought them with real money, or you just gave him credits) 

But tell me Alex. Why punish Pooball for abusing a bug, punish Piss face for using a bug (As for whether or not nations should be allowed to spend money in VM, probably not, I just never bothered to disable every action (it was never an issue until this point.) I disagree that spending the money is a valid defence against the rule) However you did not punish Camelot for abusing bugs?

Pooball did not "report the bug" like you think he did. That's ridiculous - if I knew exactly what the bug was why would I have let it exist and let him cheat? Furthermore, abusing the bug (even if he had reported it properly) certainly still earned him a ban.

Camelot didn't knowingly abuse a bug necessarily - it was a brand new feature wherein there was an edge case that I had thought I accounted for but there was a bug with the code. And whatever benefit they got from abusing the bug was limited. Punishment in this case was unnecessary.

Piss face did not break the rules by buying cities or infrastructure, he broke the rules by hiding a bank using Vacation Mode. That is very clearly written in the rules and what the punishment is, which was applied. The rules mandated that I return 80% and delete 20% - how could I let him keep the things he had spent the money on? Doing so would have been just spawning wealth into the game, and he would have been rewarded for breaking the rules.

  • Upvote 1

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

Pooball reported the bug as a general timing attack, not one that could be utilized for infinite resources. I was there in NR when it happened.

 

I think NR was desperate enough because he thought (and I had informed him to the effect) that we were running alliance killers on his protectorate. So he resorted to resource spawning to stay alive.


That probably wouldn't have been caught if Pooball had the sense not to do it on such a massive scale; he reached 200 billion in terms of the RSS generated (and likely 400 billion at wartime prices). But, he kept going, and going, and going, and going, and here we are.

 

I'm generally satisfied with the resolution, I'm not sure if piss face is. Does this thread still need to be open?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
20 hours ago, Alex said:

Camelot didn't knowingly abuse a bug necessarily - it was a brand new feature wherein there was an edge case that I had thought I accounted for but there was a bug with the code. And whatever benefit they got from abusing the bug was limited. Punishment in this case was unnecessary.

So they tested it first, then used it a few times and you are saying they did not know it was a bug?, WHY test it if that was the case?

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.