Popular Post Danzek Posted June 26, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=184908 + https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=150580 + https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=36419 Ruler Name: Bharat country + Ironfist + Sphinx Nature of Violation: 1. Florence had a lot of resources on them (tCW), but goes inactive for presumably IRL reasons 2. Opros attacks Florence, lol 3. Bharat country and Ironfist leave the alliance and declare war on Florence for the purpose of preventing other attacks until Florence can come online and deposit. 4. Bharat country and Ironfist rejoin the alliance. 5. Florence is still a member of tCW 6. Bharat country attacks Opros for attacking Florence Note: Sphinx (tCW leader) acknowledged the attack on Florence was the justification for attacking Opros, hence, this could be considered war slot filling. THL leader (tCW's training alliance) Edit (clarification): regarding subsequent attacks against Opros / Agon (alliance) Edit: Clarification by sphinx. 1. They beiged their own member, so it's Okay.Note from borg: It prevented additional attacks, and given Florence is still a member, prevented tCW bank / Florence from further looting. 2. The screenshot is of Sphinx/THL is ONLY referring to the subsequent attacks against Opros / Agon (alliance). Note from borg: When tCW sees 4 defensive wars in a span of a week, 2 DEFINITELY NOT slot filling, and 2 from Deulos and I), is it conceivable that things just slip under the radar? 3. They rectified their minimal damage attacks. Note from borg: Instead of an Utter Failure with minimal damage, IronFist fixed their attacks so that they were doing an Immense Triumph with minimal damage. Edited June 27, 2020 by Borg 1 2 7 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyana Posted June 26, 2020 Share Posted June 26, 2020 That's clearly slot filling 1 1 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KindaEpicMoah Posted June 26, 2020 Share Posted June 26, 2020 I'd also just like to add that both nations rejoined The Hanseatic League almost immediately after leaving and attacking Florence, presumably so they could circumvent the protectorate treaty and avoid being attacked by others. Additionally, Dillon was using the bare minimum amount of soldiers needed to achieve an immense triumph (evidenced by the fact that he didn't send enough soldiers to get an immense triumph twice) to cause as little damage as possible. 1 4 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendell Posted June 26, 2020 Share Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) Interesting... Edited June 26, 2020 by Deulos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sphinx Posted June 26, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, Borg said: snip Ok so lets break down this confused and misinformed post. 1: The rules over slot filling imply you can't hold a slot to prevent someone from attacking another player, and that if you have no intention of fighting a war to a victory then that is classified as slot filling. Our members did nothing of the sort. They fought their wars to a beige and broke no rules. 2: That screenshot is regarding the attacks we launched against Agon, nothing to do with "slot filling" Medici which is BS. 3: When they hit they did a GA with 2,000 soldiers, but it was unknown to them that this sort of army strength would fail to get an IT GA, because of certain coding reasons. A problem they rectified in future hits. So no this isn't slot filling. Honestly you should re-read the rules before making posts. Edited June 26, 2020 by Sphinx 1 14 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Popular Post Alex Posted June 27, 2020 Administrators Popular Post Share Posted June 27, 2020 I'd agree this is war slot filling, thanks for the report. In this context, these nations are probable allies, and these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." These were both Raid wars, so if the attackers' true intent was to steal as much loot as possible, they wouldn't have sent such minimal units. Just because they fought the wars to completion does not mean that it can't be war slot filling - it seems clear that the intent was to fill the slots to protect the nation from being attacked, and then give them beige time to continue to be invulnerable to new declarations. I will issue moderation strikes against the two nations that committed the war slot filling violations. EDIT: Also a reminder that this is a no discussion forum, and I've already issued some warning points to offenders in this thread. 2 2 7 36 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sphinx Posted June 27, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) On 6/26/2020 at 7:55 PM, Borg said: Edit: Clarification by sphinx. 1. They beiged their own member, so it's Okay.Note from borg: It prevented additional attacks, and given Florence is still a member, prevented tCW bank / Florence from further looting. So you're admitting you planned to send more people to attack our alliance? You aren't Arrgh or any pirate alliance you can't have your cake and eat it by hiding behind your treaty partners when you put your foot in mud. You obviously didn't learn your lesson from TKR for raiding Chocolate Castle. TCW Bank has nothing in it we empty it to our offshore. On 6/26/2020 at 7:55 PM, Borg said: 2. The screenshot is of Sphinx/THL is ONLY referring to the subsequent attacks against Opros / Agon (alliance). Note from borg: When tCW sees 4 defensive wars in a span of a week, 2 DEFINITELY NOT slot filling, and 2 from Deulos and I), is it conceivable that things just slip under the radar? You just contradicted yourself. If the screenshot is unrelated to the Medici situation why did you choose to include it? Unless you were attempting to get me nation striked as well which is a pretty clear case of moderation as a weapon I might add. Honestly pathetic, that you need to resort to actions like this..... On 6/26/2020 at 7:55 PM, Borg said: 3. They rectified their minimal damage attacks. Note from borg: Instead of an Utter Failure with minimal damage, IronFist fixed their attacks so that they were doing an Immense Triumph with minimal damage Yes you just explained what I already said. Good job for paraphrasing. Here is a log from TCW Government chat about the hit: As you can see Dillon recognised his mistake immediately and made changes to ensure he got the loot. Nothing here is breaking any of the rules. As per our DM's @Alex These are the rules for slot filling. 1: Dillon and Sidd had every intention of fighting them to a victory. 3 hours ago, Alex said: In this context, these nations are probable allies, and these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." These were both Raid wars, so if the attackers' true intent was to steal as much loot as possible, they wouldn't have sent such minimal units. Just because they fought the wars to completion does not mean that it can't be war slot filling - it seems clear that the intent was to fill the slots to protect the nation from being attacked, and then give them beige time to continue to be invulnerable to new declarations. 2: They did not prevent others from attacking. I don't understand how that works? How can you state that even when players end up fighting a war to its conclusion, that it still constitutes slot filling? Nothing about that is recorded in the game rules, it says nothing about not being able to raid allies. It simply states that wars where the attacker appears to be feigning attacks to prevent serious wars being waged against the target are the sole case of slot filling. The logs I posted above prove they were after loot and that they did not feign any attacks on purpose to prevent others from taking slots. You are penalising two long active and long standing players for a simple mistake. Worst of all is Sidd didn't make that mistake only Dillon did, he got full Immense Triumphs: So his strike was certainly unequivocally unwarranted. 3: Sidd and Dillon were after the loot, something many alliances have done by raiding their inactives. I recall Partisan and t$ doing that to one of the ex-Coalition Whales who was inactive. t$ dropped out of the AA and raided him constantly, even when Arrgh was raiding him a couple times. If you want to loot a nation of its resources you need to beige it, so you're penalising two people for following the mechanics the game has in place. 4: What use is beige time for someone who is inactive? We did not even mention beiging them so they can't be looted as a reason for the hit. If you want access to TCW government channels so you can read the information yourself just let me know. But Dillon made changes to his build to add one barracks so he could raid, that is why he had a low solider count. The bottom line is none of my members slot filled. I ask if you can do what's right and revoke these strikes. Edited June 27, 2020 by Sphinx typo 1 24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TRM Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 I cbf to read the rest of the thread, nor do I have the time for it right now. But I would like to address some of this. 4 hours ago, Alex said: In this context, these nations are probable allies, and these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." These 2 nations did not send minimal units to fight a war. No, instead, they sent minimal units to beige a target, as would anyone who gave the post a few more seconds of their time. Understand, these nations aren't fighting a war; thry are raiding. Why go mill up to 5/5/5/3 and waste tens of millions on milling up, when you can just attack with a few thousand soldiers? This is more cost efficient, and allows your other improvements to make u money whilst u are raiding the target. 4 hours ago, Alex said: These were both Raid wars, so if the attackers' true intent was to steal as much loot as possible, they wouldn't have sent such minimal units. Just because they fought the wars to completion does not mean that it can't be war slot filling - it seems clear that the intent was to fill the slots to protect the nation from being attacked, and then give them beige time to continue to be invulnerable to new declarations. Again, what I said earlier. It is more cost efficient to go with the least troops possible to beige the target, rather than mil up, and lose millions of steel for tanks, and much more for daily income. As for beiging to protect, how does that make sense? If they wanted to protect the nation via beige, why not allow other pirates to beige said target? Would that not get the same result, with less effort? As I stated earlier, I didn't really read what Sphinx posted, but your ruling, and the logic behind it does not make any sense. 18 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Thalmor Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Alex said: In this context, these nations are probable allies, and these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." Hey Alex, I wanted to point something out from the rules regarding slotfilling: "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 'using minimal units' thing seems to be pivoted on the idea that it only becomes a rule violation if there's an intent to not win the war. Otherwise, anyone trying to fight economically is in violation of the rules because of slotfilling and I think we'd both agree that's not the spirit of the rule nor the intent behind it. As such, I think you might've made a wrong call here because the war was won; they beiged the defender. You said that they did this to prevent more attacks, but beiging is also how you get more loot and I think the wars being raid wars proves that getting loot was the motivator behind the wars. I also want to point out that this trend of alliance members leaving to hit their own inactive members isn't new. It's been around for a while. I don't know why this is a problem now (perhaps you never knew about it). I respectfully ask you to reconsider your position on this because I don't think the 'suspects' in this report thread did anything wrong, I don't think their actions violated the spirit behind the slot filling rules, and I would like for this ability for alliances to get loot out of their inactive members to remain a viable option. Thanks! Edited June 28, 2020 by Thalmor Format error; left out a few words. 19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobert Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 another day, another controversy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzek Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sphinx said: If the screenshot is unrelated to the Medici situation why did you choose to include it? Bharat country attacked Opros after attacking florence, and I was under the assumption that you authorized the latter (since that's what I was told by tHL leader). Given that they left and rejoined the alliance in the span of minutes, I assumed it was coordinated in the same breath. Though by your own screenshot, you both were there helping Ironfirst with his attacks, so we've established that you were involved in coordinating the "filling of slots" anyway. Question is just whether it constitutes war slot filling. If I misunderstood the rules, that's my bad. 2 hours ago, Sphinx said: which is a pretty clear case of moderation as a weapon Not sure how you get there. "Moderation as a Weapon is threatening to report another player to an Administrator or Moderator unless they comply with your request or demands." I never threatened to report you, or made any demands. I just saw what I thought to be slot filling, and reported it on the forums. (up to alex if it actually is) 2 hours ago, Sphinx said: it says nothing about not being able to raid allies tHC is basically an extension of tCW, so it's attacking your own member. If you wanted to raid Florence, why was the declaration message "wake up bud"? Don't you get more loot from ground attacks with soldiers than you do from having those slots be e.g. farms? 1 hour ago, Mr. Goober said: Why go mill up to 5/5/5/3 and waste tens of millions on milling up, when you can just attack with a few thousand soldiers? It was like 1 barracks (with a double rebuy). Who raids at c25 with only 1 barracks???. You make loot from ground attacks, using soldiers, more so than you would having those slots being used for e.g. farms. So someone with the goal of maximizing profit would have maxed barracks instead of the bare minimum for an immense triumph. You definitely don't need to max ships and tanks against someone who has none, I agree. 1 hour ago, Mr. Goober said: why not allow other pirates to beige said target? because if the goal is to keep the money in the alliance, letting pirates raid Florence is the opposite of that?? Edited June 28, 2020 by Borg 1 2 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post LukeTP Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) I would like to provide some additional evidence. Firstly, a quote from the rules with my emphasis: Quote 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. Another example of war slot filling would be coordinating with an opponent to remove a bounty. While bounty-hunting is legal and encouraged, coordinating with allies, for example, to remove a bounty while doing minimal damage would be considered war slot filling. Similarly, coordinated transfer of Treasures through wars with minimal damage is another example of slot filling. There is currently no reference to "allied nations" within the rules. If it is now a "rule" that you cannot attack allied nations, you must immediately outlaw all paperless treaties so that you can properly police this moving forwards. The game mechanic of not being able to attack nations protected by you, or that you have an MDP with, is clearly designed to prevent accidental declarations on allied nations. It is not a rule. Secondly, some maths. I have included the third nation who was attacking the same nation for the sake of comparison. Average loot per ground attack: Dillon = $340,099.68 Sidd = $888,663.49 Opros = $149,358.90 Prior to the wars taking place, Dillon was not militarised for ground combat, whereas Sidd had some militarisation, and Opros was (though to a lesser extent). The formula for calculating loot is very simple (taken from the PnW Wiki): Quote MIN(((Attacking Soldiers*RAND(0.5,1)) + (Attacking Tanks*RAND(7,13))*Victory), Defender's Money * 0.75, Defender's Money - 1,000,000) Judging by the amounts that were being looted, it is clear that the amount being looted was not based off of 75% of the defender's money, or the defender's money less 1 million, so therefore it was on the dice roll formula. None of the four nations involved had any tanks to speak of. In order for Dillon to loot an average of $340,099.68 per ground attack, assuming he was getting a generous roll and the RAND was coming out at 1, he would have required an average of 113,366.56 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 625,000 with a daily rebuy of 125,000 available) to loot that amount of cash. In order for Sidd to loot an average of $888,663.49, and again assuming a generous roll of RAND = 1, they would have required an average of 296,221.16 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 425,000 with a daily rebuy of 85,000 available). In order for Opros to loot an average of $149,358.90, and assuming a less generous roll of RAND = 0.5 (to show them using more soldiers and therefore not be slot filling), they would have required an average of 99,572.60 soldiers per ground attack (of a possible 500,000 with a daily rebuy of 100,000 available). If we used the same assumption that we used to make Dillon and Sidd look worse (RAND = 1), then Opros required only 49,786.3 soldiers per ground attack). On the basis of this, and the starting positions, Sidd and Dillon both raided in line with the situations they found themselves in, Sidd being partially militarised, and Dillon not being militarised on the ground, and their loot stats in these wars stack up against that. Opros, who is the only point of comparison for this set of wars, clearly was fighting the war with a much lower % of their daily rebuy than the two nations who have been punished as a result of this report. If Sidd and Dillon have broken the rules by slot filling as they did not use enough military units in their battles, then Opros has surely broken the same rules (and more severely) yet has not been punished? EDIT I should also mention that Opros initially used what could only be "one ship naval attacks" (what is more minimal than one ship) to blockade Florence. The amount of infrastructure destroyed was 0.71 and 3.93 in two separate attacks. Quote Infrastructure Destroyed = MAX( MIN(Attacking Ships - (Defending Ships * 0.5) * 2.625 * RAND(0.85,1.05) * (Victory Type / 3), City's Infrastructure * 0.5 + 25), 0) Using the formula taken from the PnW Wiki, Opros would have required between 0.26 and 1.76 ships (depending on the dice roll element) in order to destroy those infrastructure amounts. END OF EDIT Error 404 (Borg's alliance) and The Commonwealth have been in a dispute for some time, and this report was only submitted three days after the relevant wars ended, and the resolution of the dispute was clearly not to Borg's liking. It seems that Borg has therefore (successfully) used this game report as a means of "getting back" at The Commonwealth and while it may not be "against the rules", just like what Dillon and Sidd did was not "against the rules", it was clearly against the spirit of the game. Edited June 28, 2020 by LukeTP Missed a point RE: Naval battles 1 16 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TRM Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 33 minutes ago, Borg said: It was like 1 barracks (with a double rebuy). Who raids at c25 with only 1 barracks???. You make loot from ground attacks, using soldiers, more so than you would having those slots being used for e.g. farms. So someone with the goal of maximizing profit would have maxed barracks instead of the bare minimum for an immense triumph. Well, who would do that u say? Me, for example. I have 2k infra, and 8k tanks as an mmr. All I ever do need is 50 soldiers and a few thousand tanks for an IT every time. Plus, it is a lot easier to switch one mine to a barrack, than do that to all of em, and wait 3 days to max soldiers to get max profit. That's besides the economic factor as well. As a raider, I'd expect you to know this, Borg. 39 minutes ago, Borg said: because if the goal is to keep the money in the alliance, letting pirates raid Florence is the opposite of that?? What I said was in reference to slot filling. Slotting ur own member for loot is not against the rules, as the reason you are targeting the member is to loot him, not to prevent others from attacking him, which is what the basis of slot filling is, to prevent others from attacking the nation in question. 9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzek Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, LukeTP said: Opros, who is the only point of comparison for this set of wars, clearly was fighting the war with a much lower % of their daily rebuy Opros has surely broken the same rules (and more severely) yet has not been punished? Opros had low military from three defensive wars and wasn't in HL attacking another member of (basically) the same alliance. 52 minutes ago, LukeTP said: Error 404 (Borg's alliance) and The Commonwealth have been in a dispute for some time, and this report was only submitted three days after the relevant wars ended, and the resolution of the dispute was clearly not to Borg's liking. I reported it when I saw it, as is my obligation. (since I thought it constituted war slot filling), and things resolved relatively peacefully, which was presumably in both our interests. 25 minutes ago, Mr. Goober said: Plus, it is a lot easier to switch one mine to a barrack, than do that to all of em I guess, but... https://politicsandwar.com/city/improvements/bulk-import/ is easy enough. 25 minutes ago, Mr. Goober said: wait 3 days to max soldiers to get max profit. A single day's rebuy is enough to justify the barracks. 10 ground attacks lasts 2 days (and thus two rebuys), so therefore it should always be worth it. 25 minutes ago, Mr. Goober said: As a raider, I'd expect you to know this, Borg. As a raider, I max soldiers and don't skimp on my barracks. Can't say that I've done much max tank no soldier raiding. Or no tank, 1 barracks raiding. Anywho, for Bharat country, this boils down to whether alliances should be able to attack their own inactive members without removing them first. Edited June 28, 2020 by Borg 3 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 I unironically reported this 2 days ago and it has been called not slotfilling So yes, this thread can be closed 1 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRM Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, Borg said: I guess, but... https://politicsandwar.com/city/improvements/bulk-import/ is easy enough. Again, it is still easier to switch that one barrack, and not to mention costs less. 9 minutes ago, Borg said: A single day's rebuy is enough to justify the barracks. 10 ground attacks lasts 2 days (and thus two rebuys), so therefore it should always be worth it. As a raider, I max soldiers and don't skimp on my barracks. Can't say that I've done much max tank no soldier raiding. Or no tank, 1 barracks raiding. Sure, a few ground attacks probably get you enough to recoup ur losses on switching the barracks. But then come in the economic factors. Regardless, this is hardly a moot point. Alex just needs to remove those strikes. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzek Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Mr. Goober said: Again, it is still easier to switch that one barrack I'm guessing that's why IronFist "raided" with turtle? Getting an extra ~77M worth of loot by switching is hardly worth the effort? Though I would think it's easier removing a member to raid them than it is to have two members leave and rejoin. Edited June 28, 2020 by Borg 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 14 hours ago, Alex said: I'd agree this is war slot filling, thanks for the report. In this context, these nations are probable allies, and these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." These were both Raid wars, so if the attackers' true intent was to steal as much loot as possible, they wouldn't have sent such minimal units. Just because they fought the wars to completion does not mean that it can't be war slot filling - it seems clear that the intent was to fill the slots to protect the nation from being attacked, and then give them beige time to continue to be invulnerable to new declarations. I will issue moderation strikes against the two nations that committed the war slot filling violations. EDIT: Also a reminder that this is a no discussion forum, and I've already issued some warning points to offenders in this thread. Alex, you told me literally yesterday this isnt slotfilling WTF are you doing now? 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGhost Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Borg said: I'm guessing that's why IronFist "raided" with turtle? Getting an extra ~77M worth of loot by switching is hardly worth the effort? Though I would think it's easier removing a member to raid them than it is to have two members leave and rejoin. I mean, I wouldn’t doubt that he just wasn’t playing optimally not on purpose. Reasoning being Turtle is a bad base policy to be on in the first place and he initially didn’t know that base population provides a small military ground score. With that said I don’t think this point is very valid or else you’d just be setting a precedent for punishing players for being unknowledgeable. I’ve seen many people do stupid raids with bad policy etc, but can’t really accuse them of slot filling for that reason. EDIT: Actually it may come down to context for not playing optimally now that I think about it more. In this case probably not on purpose though. Also if Shadow really reported it before and it wasn’t slot filling and then Borg reported it and it was deemed slot filling.... I hope it isn’t true as that makes me worried. Edited June 28, 2020 by KingGhost 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danzek Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, KingGhost said: With that said I don’t think this point is very valid or else you’d just be setting a precedent for punishing players for being unknowledgeable. I’ve seen many people do stupid raids with bad policy etc, but can’t really accuse them of slot filling for that reason. Nah, my point there was just questioning Goober's broken logic that sound economic / raiding practices explain it. Making dumb mistakes is a much better justification. If that's the only requirement of slot filling, then yeah, I agree. My thoughts when reporting were that I didn't think it was allowed to attack your own members. Edited June 28, 2020 by Borg 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post LukeTP Posted June 28, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted June 28, 2020 17 hours ago, Alex said: I'd agree this is war slot filling, thanks for the report. In this context, these nations are probable allies, and these wars fall under what I would consider "sending attacks with minimal units to appear to be fighting a war." <snip> 10 hours ago, AntMan said: I unironically reported this 2 days ago and it has been called not slotfilling So yes, this thread can be closed 2 hours ago, AntMan said: Alex, you told me literally yesterday this isnt slotfilling WTF are you doing now? Alex... if this is true, I am extremely concerned as if you have had the same thing reported to you by two people, one being a random member of the community, and one being a member of your QA/API team; and you make the decision that the report by the random member of the community is unfounded, yet the report by a member of your QA/API team is correct and justified; things no longer become about whether someone has broken the rules, and more about who is reporting a rule breach which is a very sad state of affairs. The quotes from AntMan lead further evidence to support my point quoted below. 11 hours ago, LukeTP said: <snip> Error 404 (Borg's alliance) and The Commonwealth have been in a dispute for some time, and this report was only submitted three days after the relevant wars ended, and the resolution of the dispute was clearly not to Borg's liking. It seems that Borg has therefore (successfully) used this game report as a means of "getting back" at The Commonwealth and while it may not be "against the rules", just like what Dillon and Sidd did was not "against the rules", it was clearly against the spirit of the game. This needs to be cleared up now... 1 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, LukeTP said: Alex... if this is true, I am extremely concerned as if you have had the same thing reported to you by two people, one being a random member of the community, and one being a member of your QA/API team; and you make the decision that the report by the random member of the community is unfounded, yet the report by a member of your QA/API team is correct and justified; things no longer become about whether someone has broken the rules, and more about who is reporting a rule breach which is a very sad state of affairs. The quotes from AntMan lead further evidence to support my point quoted below. This needs to be cleared up now... @Dr Rush and @Lossi can testify that I did make a report via discord and that it was ruled that these wars arent war slot-filling(ticket 938 possibly) The thing however is what he said, that depending on who makes the report, the same issue can be viewed with bias. I am not asking you to reverse your decisions but please make decisions in agreement with your previous decisions. Edited June 28, 2020 by AntMan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeTP Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, AntMan said: >snip> The thing however is what he said, that depending on who makes the report, the same issue can be viewed with bias. <snip> There should be no bias in moderation decisions, end of story. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilpiggyfoofoo Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Borg said: Nah, my point there was just questioning Goober's broken logic that sound economic / raiding practices explain it. Making dumb mistakes is a much better justification. If that's the only requirement of slot filling, then yeah, I agree. My thoughts when reporting were that I didn't think it was allowed to attack your own members. People can obviously be sound in some areas and forget in some other areas... Not everyone is a perfect raider and never makes mistakes. I am sure most people in this game have forgotten to change war policies before a real war atleast once. Plus changing all to barracks for two days means losing two days worth of resource production for a little bit more loot in ground attacks. Depending on the nation, that might be unprofitable. Second...people have attacked their own members since the game started. It is just smarter to raid your own member and keep the money you granted them rather than kick them out and have the resources on them raided by someone not in your alliance. This is all very logical stuff you know to be true :,) Edited June 28, 2020 by evilpiggyfoofoo 1 5 Quote Order fresh quality ads, flags, and graphics at Makin'Bacon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reg Penney Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) Borg is Fake News! Edited June 28, 2020 by Reg Penney 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.