Jump to content

Discussion regarding DNFJ's bank/vm


Sir Scarfalot
 Share

Recommended Posts

for reference.

Now, since this IS the correct place for discussion...

 

I'm actually okay with Alex's decision.

No, really, think about it. The penalty for hiding bank is that it's returned with a portion removed.

In this case... he'll still have the bank... with a portion removed. That it's removed by raid is ok by me. Hell, it's arguably that much better, no?

Though I do want to see consistency, let's at least keep that much in mind.

@Olive Penderghast @Akuryo please move discussion here?

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Providing relevant case materials =/= discussion. 

Frankly I don't see a reason it shouldn't suffer raiding and deletion. The occurrence of the raids is completely irrelevant to the assertion and basic fact predicated on prior precedent and a simple reading of the rules, that a violation has occurred.

As such, the proper punishment should be executed. If it is then not returnable for any reason due to the odd circumstances, it should be left there to then suffer being raided. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Providing relevant case materials =/= discussion. 

Frankly I don't see a reason it shouldn't suffer raiding and deletion. The occurrence of the raids is completely irrelevant to the assertion and basic fact predicated on prior precedent and a simple reading of the rules, that a violation has occurred.

As such, the proper punishment should be executed. If it is then not returnable for any reason due to the odd circumstances, it should be left there to then suffer being raided. 

Hey, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying... discussion here, not there. I ain't no moderator ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As it is, you have a solid point and I agree that consistency is important. Still though, there's a unique opportunity here which is to allow DNFJ's enemies to loot the bank as opposed to simply having the funds re-secured with a bunch of it admin'd out of existence. I'd honestly argue that it's a better outcome, the only problem being of course Sheepy's flatly absurd reasoning completely ignoring that.

Hence my request for a facepalm reaction.

@Bjorn Ironside Mate, I'm right there with you, but chill out ok? You're not doing yourself any favors flipping out, understandable though it is.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

I have a few things to point out.

1) @Do Not Fear Jazz asked me about this ahead of time, and I allowed it. His reasoning being that this wasn't the contents of the alliance bank, but his own personal investment from GOONS previously. (Said by Alex) 

Fairness in Trading & Banking

Prices and amounts in trades are generally at the player's discretion. In instances where trades and banks are used to funnel money and/or resources from one nation to another, where one nation has no intention to continue playing the game is a bannable offense.

2) Posted September 8, 2019 Alex stated

https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6033 is an alliance, they have a bank.

You received an enormous amount of funds from the Alliance Bank, then went into Vacation Mode.

Per the Game 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.

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.

 

It seems to be that by being in Vacation Mode, you were protecting the alliance bank contents from being raided. You spent a lot of (mostly the money) and sent some of the funds to a different bank, so I calculated what was effectively being protected from raiding via Vacation Mode, deleted 20%, and returned the other 80% per the Game Rules.

 

It seems like a pretty open-and-shut violation and subsequent punishment to me.



Tell me how does any of this add up?, Alex 1) lets DNFJ put rrs in a bank from a nation that not only deleted but had no intentions of keep playing, and let DNFJ to reclaim it, then lets them hide in VM with RRS that came from a bank?

@Alex are you sure you did not give NPO the OK to just change your mind at a later date?

So as it stands you not only gave DNFJ the ok to keep rrs that belonged to a nation that's deleted, but you then let them hide in VM with a bank. if you stand by this (trust me I hope you do) Then i will be filing an appeal on the two lots of RRS and Cash you have removed from my nation claiming I was hiding an alliance bank when it was simply my own cash and rrs.

Edited by Elijah Mikaelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
19 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Hey, I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying... discussion here, not there. I ain't no moderator ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As it is, you have a solid point and I agree that consistency is important. Still though, there's a unique opportunity here which is to allow DNFJ's enemies to loot the bank as opposed to simply having the funds re-secured with a bunch of it admin'd out of existence. I'd honestly argue that it's a better outcome, the only problem being of course Sheepy's flatly absurd reasoning completely ignoring that.

Hence my request for a facepalm reaction.

@Bjorn Ironside Mate, I'm right there with you, but chill out ok? You're not doing yourself any favors flipping out, understandable though it is.

In truth mate what does it matter, Alex has proven he will change his rules at will, change the goal posts to fit what he wants, As i said with this u-turn on a ruling i have been hit with twice now, I am starting to think maybe just maybe NPO did nothing wrong and alex simply changed the goal posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

In truth mate what does it matter, Alex has proven he will change his rules at will, change the goal posts to fit what he wants, As i said with this u-turn on a ruling i have been hit with twice now, I am starting to think maybe just maybe NPO did nothing wrong and alex simply changed the goal posts.

Matter? It matters because we've got this one chance, one chance to get these things right. I'm trying to get this discussion going so Alex can either pull together an explanation that makes some hecking sense, or else apologize. I'm hoping so anyway, since nothing excuses either cheating or moderation bullshit. Which I fully agree you have a solid case to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
12 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Matter? It matters because we've got this one chance, one chance to get these things right. I'm trying to get this discussion going so Alex can either pull together an explanation that makes some hecking sense, or else apologize. I'm hoping so anyway, since nothing excuses either cheating or moderation bullshit. Which I fully agree you have a solid case to argue.

Well if Alex upholds ruling on Jazz, then I see no reason why everything Alex has taken from me should not be returned.

But I agree with you, he has to follow his past ruling to change the standard ruling now then I believe mostly in my case that the ruling on my nation has to be over turned and all RRS and Cash returned 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts on the matter...

Quote

Either way it requires investigating considering the circumstances. Yes players did accumulate more, for the most part they got cities around the same or higher than my count of 29. 

I would say it is not legal just because it is verified, its a decision that needs to be reversed given how other individuals who are more easily able to amass wealth such bjorn were punished for going to VM with a fraction of his own money. Just because you inform Alex of your possible cheating and he initially agrees without the full context available doesn't mean you're right, NPO learned this. 

I think Bjorn should be compensated for this development if it is allowed to do this.

I think you should be allowed to take your money to VM, but this guy is probably not taking just his money.  5 Billion+ taken to VM, that's so bad considering what happened to Bjorn who should have massive amounts of money. 

The game rules are a little too short tbh. 

  • Upvote 1

IpHGyGc.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Alex said:

 

I don't think you should have given him the choice that you did, should have just ended the vacation mode to pretend like it never happened so the raiders still had a fair shot at the loot, but that's just me. However, I appreciate you made the amendment to your ruling in the first place, so thank you.

Edited by Aether

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alex said:

Please see:

Alright well... at least you fixed the inconsistency. In an absolutely awful way, but bluuuuuuhhhh fine.

@Blutarch Mann We're holding you to your promise of returning that to Jazz so we can raid it off him k

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Alright well... at least you fixed the inconsistency. In an absolutely awful way, but bluuuuuuhhhh fine.

@Blutarch Mann We're holding you to your promise of returning that to Jazz so we can raid it off him k

Unfortunately, we lost it again.

Our accountants have been sacked once again.

Edited by Blutarch Mann
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson

I think Alex made another mistake in not taking the 20% and giving a nation strike, Also the fact Alex did not check before even saying it was ok, like come on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bjorn Ironside said:

I think Alex made another mistake in not taking the 20% and giving a nation strike, Also the fact Alex did not check before even saying it was ok, like come on

"the admin did what I asked but didn't punish the person I hate enough"

Get over yourself sweetie

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
42 minutes ago, Blutarch Mann said:

"the admin did what I asked but didn't punish the person I hate enough"

Get over yourself sweetie

Shame that did not work when your overlords got their marching orders.

You do not hate Jazz he is still your leader we all know you might try and act hard but lets face it Roq still controls you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Blutarch Mann said:

"the admin did what I asked but didn't punish the person I hate enough"

Get over yourself sweetie

Actually the admin was asked to either clarify the rules and compensate Bjorn for the inconsistency, or to stop being dumb and enforce the rules as per his prior precedent.

He did neither, and uses the hilariously weak of excuse of "I didn't realize how much there was." Incompetence should not be relevant factor into properly executing the rules.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Incompetence should not be relevant factor into properly executing the rules.

Of course it shouldn't, but considering we're all suffering under Sheepy we're just going to have to deal with it anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2020 at 2:08 PM, Akuryo said:

Actually the admin was asked to either clarify the rules and compensate Bjorn for the inconsistency, or to stop being dumb and enforce the rules as per his prior precedent.

He did neither, and uses the hilariously weak of excuse of "I didn't realize how much there was." Incompetence should not be relevant factor into properly executing the rules.

Finally, someone else realizes that the administrative decisions are handed down based on "how much the person has made Alex have to do actual work" and "how much money the parties involved have paid into Alex's cookie fund, because he hates fun in most ways relatable to the average person".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Neodymium said:

Finally, someone else realizes that the administrative decisions are handed down based on "how much the person has made Alex have to do actual work" and "how much money the parties involved have paid into Alex's cookie fund, because he hates fun in most ways relatable to the average person".

1. The cheaters should by prior precedent, precedent that had been loudly supported by they themselves, been permanently banned with no recourse. Instead, not only were they given a chance to apologize and dodge all bans, but even after being completely rude and disingenuous they were given merely temporary bans at the most. Administrative decision was absolutely biased in your favor, and still you insist that somehow your opponents were the ones getting special treatment?

2. The largest alliances, and therefore the largest sources of either VIP purchases or advert viewings were the ones hit... with a feather. So, you might be right about administration being biased by contribution to the cookie fund, but don't pretend that you're not the beneficiaries.

3. Your collective tantrum has literally* gotten you more punishment than the cheating and done orders of magnitude* more damage than either the war or the administrator would have ever had the possibility or inclination to.

*words used 100% accurately and sincerely

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
respectively; technically the admin can *potentially* do arbitrary damage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Neodymium said:

4. You can't help yourself* but to reply, most likely* in a fit of rage* because your parents* wouldn't buy you a tiki torch and a ticket to Charlottesville.

*words used 100% accurately and sincerely

Oh the hate. Keep it going buddy. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Neodymium said:

>KT
Keep posting those remove kebab and vlad the impaler memes and telling yourself it's OK because it's an ideology, not a race, DAAAAAD

Someone is triggered. 

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.