Jump to content
Borg

War Slot Filling

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 6/26/2020 at 7:55 PM, Borg said:

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.
unknown.png
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. 
unknown.png

THL leader (tCW's training alliance) Edit (clarification): regarding subsequent attacks against Opros / Agon (alliance)
image.png.d98892ffb568b865a8f46f1fe1d6b8e8.png

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.

 

 

 

Objection Your Honour (Alex)!

 

Borg has spread nothing but fake news like CNN against Trump, PM Sphinx and co has done nothing wrong.

 

I stand with the Prime Minister of TCW & Against Borg and his Fake News!

 

Edited by Reg Penney
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reminder: this is a no-discussion forum. Many more warning points have been issued, and will continue to be issued to continued rule violators in this thread.

  • Downvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 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

Your report did not contain the same amount of context and information as this one did. For example, you did not mention that they were doing low unit count attacks. My cursory glance after your report did not lead me to believe that it was war slot filling, but after this report I looked closer and determined that these wars were done by allies with the intent of helping the nation they attacked, rather than to truly raid them.

Even Sphinx agreed in DMs that had this been during an alliance war, it absolutely would have been a clear cut case of slot filling. In my opinion, alliance war or not, it's still slot filling. I don't see why it would need to be an alliance war for the same behavior to be slot filling.

image.png

If the nations truly intended to raid the target, they would have used more units and they would have picked war policies like Pirate that would have given them 40% more loot. The minimal unit attacks, the fact that they are attacking an ally, and the fact that they did such a poor job of trying to raid the target lead me to believe that they were not actually trying to raid them but keep the slots filled. They finished the wars and beiged the target to try to skirt the rules and call it a "real" war, and the added beige time also prevented their ally from further war declarations (which everyone agrees is slot filling. If intentionally beiging your allies is not slot filling, then every alliance war will be allies attacking allies to give them beige time to rebuild, and it would be a huge mess.)

The rule reads:

Quote

Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike and additional punishment for multiple violations.

Everyone that says this isn't war slot filling is arguing that "fighting them" means winning the war. I disagree. If it's a raid war, like in this case, I'd say that "fighting them" means doing a real raid, which we have evidence they did not by the minimal units sent, the lack of raiding war policies (if you really wanted to raid someone, why leave 40% more loot on the table?), and the fact that they're attacking an ally.

The rule also reads:

Quote

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.

So this is moderation discretion being applied, and nowhere does it say the only thing that is considered war slot filling is "having no intention to fight and win the war." That's just one example.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 13

Share this post


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

Your report did not contain the same amount of context and information as this one did. For example, you did not mention that they were doing low unit count attacks. My cursory glance after your report did not lead me to believe that it was war slot filling, but after this report I looked closer and determined that these wars were done by allies with the intent of helping the nation they attacked, rather than to truly raid them.

Even Sphinx agreed in DMs that had this been during an alliance war, it absolutely would have been a clear cut case of slot filling. In my opinion, alliance war or not, it's still slot filling. I don't see why it would need to be an alliance war for the same behavior to be slot filling.

image.png

If the nations truly intended to raid the target, they would have used more units and they would have picked war policies like Pirate that would have given them 40% more loot. The minimal unit attacks, the fact that they are attacking an ally, and the fact that they did such a poor job of trying to raid the target lead me to believe that they were not actually trying to raid them but keep the slots filled. They finished the wars and beiged the target to try to skirt the rules and call it a "real" war, and the added beige time also prevented their ally from further war declarations (which everyone agrees is slot filling. If intentionally beiging your allies is not slot filling, then every alliance war will be allies attacking allies to give them beige time to rebuild, and it would be a huge mess.)

The rule reads:

Everyone that says this isn't war slot filling is arguing that "fighting them" means winning the war. I disagree. If it's a raid war, like in this case, I'd say that "fighting them" means doing a real raid, which we have evidence they did not by the minimal units sent, the lack of raiding war policies (if you really wanted to raid someone, why leave 40% more loot on the table?), and the fact that they're attacking an ally.

The rule also reads:

So this is moderation discretion being applied, and nowhere does it say the only thing that is considered war slot filling is "having no intention to fight and win the war." That's just one example.

So, and I will accept the warning point against my account in this matter, is this an official statement that any and all raid wars that take place without being on pirate, and having max soldiers are slot filling? If that is the case, fine, so be it, but then the same ruling should apply to every other nation that does the same thing. If that is not the case, then this would be a discrepancy in moderation, and would be a clear red flag, at least in my opinion @Alex

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tarroc said:

So, and I will accept the warning point against my account in this matter, is this an official statement that any and all raid wars that take place without being on pirate, and having max soldiers are slot filling? If that is the case, fine, so be it, but then the same ruling should apply to every other nation that does the same thing. If that is not the case, then this would be a discrepancy in moderation, and would be a clear red flag, at least in my opinion @Alex

If it's against someone in your alliance or an ally, then yeah, probably. Obviously context is always important, but if you're making a fledgling attempt at raiding your ally, while they're also getting a tangible benefit from the war (preventing someone else from doing a real raid, potentially just giving the money/rss back to them, getting beige time) then that's war slot filling.

Imagine if it wasn't--every alliance could just attack their allies with minimal damage "raids", give the resources taken right back, and keep their allies slots filled and on beige indefinitely. It would make any sort of war impossible and ruin the game.

  • Downvote 11

Share this post


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

If it's against someone in your alliance or an ally, then yeah, probably. Obviously context is always important, but if you're making a fledgling attempt at raiding your ally, while they're also getting a tangible benefit from the war (preventing someone else from doing a real raid, potentially just giving the money/rss back to them, getting beige time) then that's war slot filling.

Imagine if it wasn't--every alliance could just attack their allies with minimal damage "raids", give the resources taken right back, and keep their allies slots filled and on beige indefinitely. It would make any sort of war impossible and ruin the game.

I can agree with this, just don’t play bad, tbh war policy change can be a mistake but it’s pretty obvious and big. But does this mean that doing maximum damage makes the war valid? I’m kind of confused on that part.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

If it's against someone in your alliance or an ally, then yeah, probably. Obviously context is always important, but if you're making a fledgling attempt at raiding your ally, while they're also getting a tangible benefit from the war (preventing someone else from doing a real raid, potentially just giving the money/rss back to them, getting beige time) then that's war slot filling.

Imagine if it wasn't--every alliance could just attack their allies with minimal damage "raids", give the resources taken right back, and keep their allies slots filled and on beige indefinitely. It would make any sort of war impossible and ruin the game.

I see what you are saying, but I would like to bring up a few points. The first, and primary disagreement I have with your statement is that this is not the first time such a this has occurred, There have been many instances of people dropping out of alliances to raid inactive members before, as has been stated by multiple people on this thread, yet I do not recall many, if any, instances of those being marked as slot filling, so I would like to express concern there.

 

The second point I would like to address is the matter of the concept of it being a "fledgling raid." The raids were done to be triumphant victories, as Sphinx said, that was discussed in the tCW government channel. The members were not told to do the least amount of damage possible, they were told to get triumphant victories, which they did. We specifically discussed if this would be considered slot filling, because as an alliance, we did not intend on breaking the rules, again I address Sphinx offering to allow you to see what we said and when we said it in our gov channel for clarity. If it was known we would have to have max soldiers, I assure you, that would have been done, but that brings me to my third point.

 

If the wars were declared, and multiple days was spent just making soldiers, would the same claim not have been made? That this was a case of slot filling? The members declared their wars with their soldiers, and attempted to raid in a timely manner, which is reasonable, in my opinion. It seems unfair to mark members down with slot filling for a rule that they, and it seems many here, did not know existed.

 

My fourth and final post, and thank you to everyone who has come with me on this journey, I apologize for making you read my words but won't pay for your therapy, is that in the instance of Medici, he was a member of tCW. That means myself, Sphinx, and every other member of gov who has access to the alliance control panel, can see what he possesses in his nation, and we looked at that and came to the conclusion that, despite Medici possessing a few hundred million dollars, that was not a concern for us, as the alliance makes enough money to recoup that in the span of a few days, as are a large alliance. What Medici possessed that was valuable was the resources, both refined and raw, which were worth far more than the money itself he possessed, and the only method with which those raw and refined resources could be recovered would be, naturally as you know, via defeating Medici in a war, commonly known as "beiging" a nation. Your point of saying we desire to keep Medici on beige indefintely is unfair due to this reason, as the game as it is currently structured, forces us to beige Medici in order to recover that which we desire, his raw and refined resources. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alex said:

Your report did not contain the same amount of context and information as this one did. For example, you did not mention that they were doing low unit count attacks. My cursory glance after your report did not lead me to believe that it was war slot filling, but after this report I looked closer and determined that these wars were done by allies with the intent of helping the nation they attacked, rather than to truly raid them.

Alex this has been debunked multiple times already. I provided context from TCW government channels showing that Dillon had every intention on getting an IT but he was unaware of the passive defense bonus from cities. Sidd on the other hand did not do any sort of low unit count attacks so that's categorical incorrect. How does raiding a nation help them? Medici is still inactive nothing Dillon and Sidd did would in any way "help" Medici. Dillon switched to one barrack because he didn't want to change his build he was after the beige loot that's the full story. Its completely false to claim they were slot filling. The fact that people who IC don't like TCW and are against this ruling should show you that is wasn't the right call and should be reversed. 

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Even Sphinx agreed in DMs that had this been during an alliance war, it absolutely would have been a clear cut case of slot filling. In my opinion, alliance war or not, it's still slot filling. I don't see why it would need to be an alliance war for the same behavior to be slot filling.

image.png

There's a massive difference between 2 raids happening in peacetime and an alliance war. We'd have far more important things to worry about than one inactive with a lot of loot when our attention would rightfully be focused on the alliance war. My replies errs on the side of caution, its a sad part about this game that people go out of their way to spin things to get moderator actions against people whom they don't like. IQ and others did that in the previous war and so are Borg and the rest of e404 doing it here. I would not authorise something like this during an alliance war precisely for that reason.

However the two situations aren't even remotely similar, an alliance war is an official declaration against other alliance. The very act of raiding an "allied" nation during an alliance war breaches the "preventing an attack" part. No such war exists between TCW/e404. I find it extremely distasteful that many other alliances have done this same exact thing and not being punished (Mind you they should never be punished for it anyway since its not breaking the rules), yet you liberally apply punishment to us including a blanket nation strike on both TCW members when Sidd didn't do anything which you claimed were rule violations. 

1 hour ago, Alex said:

If the nations truly intended to raid the target, they would have used more units and they would have picked war policies like Pirate that would have given them 40% more loot. The minimal unit attacks, the fact that they are attacking an ally, and the fact that they did such a poor job of trying to raid the target lead me to believe that they were not actually trying to raid them but keep the slots filled. They finished the wars and beiged the target to try to skirt the rules and call it a "real" war, and the added beige time also prevented their ally from further war declarations (which everyone agrees is slot filling. If intentionally beiging your allies is not slot filling, then every alliance war will be allies attacking allies to give them beige time to rebuild, and it would be a huge mess.)

The rule reads:

Everyone that says this isn't war slot filling is arguing that "fighting them" means winning the war. I disagree. If it's a raid war, like in this case, I'd say that "fighting them" means doing a real raid, which we have evidence they did not by the minimal units sent, the lack of raiding war policies (if you really wanted to raid someone, why leave 40% more loot on the table?), and the fact that they're attacking an ally.

The rule also reads:

So this is moderation discretion being applied, and nowhere does it say the only thing that is considered war slot filling is "having no intention to fight and win the war." That's just one example.

Again you are making assumptions about events without all the context and facts. Many times when I've found targets with a lot of loot I've switched my war policy to pirate just before I get the beige. At the end of the day how someone chooses to conduct a raid isn't a concern for moderator action. You apply a framework of rules to a situation and assess if said actions constitute a breach. You made a judgement with next to no context (Sidd getting a strike for instance when he didn't use low unit counts is an example of that) and just applied it uniformly. 

Alex you're contradicting your own rules here, you can't claim that they beiged purely to "skirt the rules to claim it as a real war", when this isn't anywhere referenced in said game rules. The rules state clearly that if you are not fighting a war to a victory, then it counts as slot filling, they followed the rules you wrote to a T. You can't then claim "moderator discretion" for a judgement when people have no background information to tell them if they're breaking the rules or if they're in the clear. That is extremely unfair and unwarranted. 

Now...Medici is still inactive it provide ZERO benefit for his beige time to be prolonged, the intent was always to loot him this was fine before when others did it but not now for some reason..... Its a strawman to include references to "alliance wars" as a justification these moderator actions when the two cases aren't connected in the slightest, others in this thread and myself have given you information which PROVES their intent was to loot not to prevent wars. Its pretty obvious Dillon and Sidd broke no rules, and this is just punitive enforcement against TCW members.

Apologies for typos or any errors... Just woke up.

Edited by Sphinx
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This entire thread is moronic to it's core.

Do any of you know of the word precedent? Ya sure as hell don't pay attention to it, even if you read every moderation thread like I do, you don't pay a damned bit of attention to it.

 

If you did, you'd realize every single one of your arguments is based on what would be classified "supporting evidence", as opposed to the "primary evidence", the big guns of the whole thing.

I get the last war was long and end was dreary and everyone tired and all, and probably none of you paid anymore attention than politics required to it, but yours truly quite literally shined a searchlight on how this rule actually works.

That part about moderator discretion is the actual rule. My members got warned for declare messages, then they got warned for 1 shipping and 15k soldiering, then sometimes they got warned when the enemy resisted, all up the wondrous coup de grace, their leader getting a strike for a war as well. One, ironically, where said leader and their target were throwing actual live punches at each other, I lost several thousand tanks, 100+ ships and something like 900 aircraft, and had them blockaded and GCd for most of the engagement.

 

And if you'd been paying attention to all that you would have seen this coming. All your screencap does, @Sphinx is prove the intent was to use minimal force to secure an IT. That is the OPPOSITE of a useful argument when e lawyering about slotfilling, prior precedent blatantly shows this. It also shows that if there's any indication you're allied to the target at all, that the burden of proof to smack you silly gets way way lower. These guys are all literally part of the same alliance. It can't get more obvious than that. 

This really applies to all member cannibalizing, which shouldn't even be surprising. If you actually look at what that is, it has one of the solidest consistent definitions for being considered slotfilling. 

You're keeping them in the AA, with all the protection from you that gives, and allowing only your own members to leave, raid, with minimal force, and return. It's using AA mechanics and politics to forcibly wall off a target to just yourself with no risk of anyone else getting anything. In TCWs case, they even only started this after someone who didn't care about such politics raided anyway. This looks even worse, like trying to plug cracks.

The best arguments against that are "well the risk is political" this is a stupid one, it's a political sim, the politics are *part* of the mechanics, just not the coded ones. Using that as a defense, there are no rules, just politics. The second is that the rule is poorly defined and poorly administered. That's not false of course.

The point here is that none of you understand how this rule actually works despite it having been put in the broad light of day, and that it was infact quite avoidable. Just boot them clean out like I always did, particularly after getting warned. I don't forget how the rule actually works because I have 2 nation strikes reminding me I'd better not. Nation strikes that won't expire. 

Changes to things like this and nation strikes are very low priority, so don't try claiming you're railing against the system to change it. If you were at Alex's interview in particular, because you already know the answer to that.

 

Tl;Dr pay better attention, take better notes, do better risk assessment, and at the end of all that, don't walk infront of the damned bullet. The guy shooting can't be helped, so help yourself to hiding behind a wall.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AntMan said:

@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.

While I don't mind looking these things up for you and sending a log.  If you don't keep track of the number on the ticket, that's not something we can reasonably do.  Ticket 938, and the surrounding tickets I could find don't involve you, and were mostly about VIP.

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.