Jump to content

Warslot filling discussion


Recommended Posts

Thank God, I got a warning point for being a acting lawyer for TCW and I plea guilty for what I did.

But Borg has defame Sphinx and TCW, I will always stand with PM Sphinx and TCW till the end.

In my view, they (Borg, Agon etc) are jealous cause TCW has a training academy branch and a strong leader.

 

Edited by Reg Penney
Just adding the jelly pepps and alliance who's jelly bout tcw
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition: "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."

So here's my interpretation.

Attacking someone for the purpose of raiding them is definitely not slot filling.

Attacking someone for the purpose of protecting them from harm is definitely slot filling.

Beiging someone is a form of protecting them, and is possibly slot filling. Doing so in a war allows someone to rebuild. But outside of a war, it doesn't do a great job of protecting them.

This one falls in a grey area because it appears tCW had reason to protect him AND reason to raid him.

This is just one of those rules that's about intent and not actions, and it's really hard to make the right call. Sort of like murder law vs manslaughter, except we don't have a lesser punishment for 'accidental' slot filling.

Given the evidence, I'd rule it as slot filling at first, then backpedal upon Sphinx giving further evidence that it was not intended as such.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it is important to first off define what slot filling is. In my opinion, it is to attack a nation with the main intent of preventing it from being attacked and therefore harmed by others. 

Edited by Mr. Goober
Fek, someone posted this while I was typing, lmao
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is really silly for 2 people to receive a (permanent) nation strike due to one person's gap in knowledge of the mechanics.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thalmor said:

The crux of the argument against the people reported seems to be that TCW protects the person that got raided and thus it's unfair to everyone else who would want to raid him. I don't find this compelling.

TCW has the right to protect their members. They also have the right to withdraw their protection of any of their members in any capacity to any extent for any reason. If they want to permit allies to hit an inactive member with a lot of loot on them, then so be it. If you want the loot that badly, attack the guy that has it. Don't want to fight TCW? Then I guess you don't get the loot. Tough luck. 

As the rules are written out now, slot filling absolutely did not occur. People shouldn't be punished for rules that aren't written out. That being said, I don't think this is a precedent that should be established in the first place.

Exactly Right Thamor!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to know what the rules actually are...

I'm even more unclear about what they are after this whole fiasco than I was before, and they were already a confused mess.

There seems to be a huge scope for "moderation discretion" which seems to be closer to "if i feel like it" than actual discretion.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what we have learned in the past day or so is:

-That you aren’t allowed to attack someone with a double-buy of soldiers. You definitely can’t attack with nearly max soldiers like Sidd did, but it’s a lot better to attack with less soldiers like the other person did.

-Don’t expect the ONLY game moderator to fairly consider what happened.

-You aren’t allowed to participate in the biggest game mechanic and WIN wars.  

-Alex won’t respond to anything...doesn’t matter what you say.

-Alex just makes up the rules as he goes, and even after the community shows him that his judgement wasn’t the best decision, he won’t care.

Oh well, I’m on my last strike so I guess I won’t be participating in the next global war.  I ask that you all don’t declare on me because I’m not going to defend myself. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dillon I said:

So what we have learned in the past day or so is:

-That you aren’t allowed to attack someone with a double-buy of soldiers. You definitely can’t attack with nearly max soldiers like Sidd did, but it’s a lot better to attack with less soldiers like the other person did.

-Don’t expect the ONLY game moderator to fairly consider what happened.

-You aren’t allowed to participate in the biggest game mechanic and WIN wars.  

-Alex won’t respond to anything...doesn’t matter what you say.

-Alex just makes up the rules as he goes, and even after the community shows him that his judgement wasn’t the best decision, he won’t care.

Oh well, I’m on my last strike so I guess I won’t be participating in the next global war.  I ask that you all don’t declare on me because I’m not going to defend myself. 

If they declare war on you, you'll be avenged my TCW brother.

Edited by Reg Penney
Fixing up the misspell they
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I disagree with Alex on the basis of this being slotfilling, you should know he's not going to repeal it.  At this point my advice is stop whining publicly and take the strike, even if it is stupid.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Changeup said:

Although I disagree with Alex on the basis of this being slotfilling, you should know he's not going to repeal it.  At this point my advice is stop whining publicly and take the strike, even if it is stupid.

This^

I tried to persistently reason with the guy in Discord and it mounted to nothing but a "it seems to me you were clearly war slot filling", trust me it was blindingly ruled on a false assumption, I complained about it before and everybody disagrees with my strikes.

Maybe someday, strikes will be set to expire at some point, unless it already has recently, I dunno. I been in VM for three months and came back to what sounds like entirely new war mechanics lmao

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Changeup said:

Although I disagree with Alex on the basis of this being slotfilling, you should know he's not going to repeal it.  At this point my advice is stop whining publicly and take the strike, even if it is stupid.

It is exactly because it is stupid that we should talk about it. At this point the only way to play without risk of strikes is let yourself be taxed 100/100 and do nothing...

Wait...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sets a tone for next war... Will people be too afraid to get called out for "slot filling" if they don't use max everything to fight? Will beige rotation be considered slot filling?? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This was not slotfilling, @Alex. The alliance war distinction that Sphinx made refers to a time when you should expect as an alliance leader for your members to be triple slotted and so yes, sending people to hit them is intentionally blocking that. That's not an assumption you could generally make in peace and, in this particular situation, E404, a non-pirate alliance in a sphere, generally wouldn't be triple slotting TCW members unless declaring an alliance war because that is an act of war. If they were declaring an alliance war, that would be exceptionally easy to spot as there'd be a multitude of wars between those two alliances. To say that alliances will permawar each other to keep each other from getting hit will never happen because the only way to effectively do that without achieving the same outcome as being warred is to not fight at all and just hold the slots. Ergo, actual slotfilling.

This was an alliance raiding its own members to recover cash from a member they hoped would wake up but isn't guaranteed to. This is a practice several alliances do and have done for years, a practice which you have ruled previously to not be slotfilling. Most members don't switch policies because they aren't raiding consistently and no one ever remembers to change policies in peacetime. They attack with smaller units than they would during an alliance war or even than a career raider would sometimes because it's a one-off raid, it's supposed to be economic. Your goal is to beige, the loot along the way isn't the primary objective and most alliance have minimal military on them during peace as well. They aren't going to max out their military for a single raid - that's expensive and ill advised. 

Edited by Adrienne
  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

This was an alliance raiding its own members to recover cash from a member they hoped would wake up but isn't guaranteed to. This is a practice several alliances do and have done for years, a practice which you have ruled previously to not be slotfilling. Most members don't switch policies because they aren't raiding consistently and no one ever remembers to change policies in peacetime. They attack with smaller units than they would during an alliance war or even than a career raider would sometimes because it's a one-off raid, it's supposed to be economic. Your goal is to beige, the loot along the way isn't the primary objective and most alliance have minimal military on them during peace as well. They aren't going to max out their military for a single raid - that's expensive and ill advised. 

If he does wake up tho, you are not allowed to stop fighting, because grumpy got hit with that, when Joe went inactive, we hit him to wake him up, and he did wake up so we peaced out, and lost a ton of resources due to Sheeps decision that he thought was it was slot filling because other people couldnt hit him, even tho the 10 people in range of Joe would never risk a war to hit him, and anyone that really wanted to hit him was well out of range.

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the guy was inactive for an extended period of time the risk that he would just come back was extremely low. In that event they would have been instructed to finish the wars (not peace out) then the debts would have been settled internally... 

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

Please see:

 

I saw it and read it. Looks like the drama will be a Ex-parrot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thalmor said:

The crux of the argument against the people reported seems to be that TCW protects the person that got raided and thus it's unfair to everyone else who would want to raid him. I don't find this compelling.

TCW has the right to protect their members. They also have the right to withdraw their protection of any of their members in any capacity to any extent for any reason. If they want to permit allies to hit an inactive member with a lot of loot on them, then so be it. If you want the loot that badly, attack the guy that has it. Don't want to fight TCW? Then I guess you don't get the loot. Tough luck. 

As the rules are written out now, slot filling absolutely did not occur. People shouldn't be punished for rules that aren't written out. That being said, I don't think this is a precedent that should be established in the first place.

This post is wrong for the simple reason of you think the politics and mechanics or the politics and moderation are separate.

In any MMO, the playerbase themselves, become a mechanic all on their own, one that can't be programmed or debugged. In a game like RuneScape, this is a pretty small part though, that games massive with a metric shitload of different coded mechanics. 

In a game like PW though, whose goal is not be an MMORPG, who doesn't really have all that much in coded mechanics, and is literally a political simulator, the players make up a large, or even majority share of the actual mechanics running the game. 

How many changes, to rules and coded mechanics, do you think there have been that were not *at all* influenced by something political. If your answer is anything but none, check your math again. 

Example: this situation, and even bounties recently too. Both common practices until now. Why the sudden change? Because.it was revealed to Alex that the political mechanics were working with the coded ones in a negative, unintended fashion.

In both instances it was brought to his attention because the person reported pissed somebody off who did it.

NPOs entire argument on me and my alliances actions violating the rules was predicated on using the political mechanics to prove that I actually was, and in some cases succeeded with strikes being issued. 

 

Politics, mechanics, and the rules are not divorced from one another. Stop trying to stay that they are, stop trying to think they are. They're not, they never have been, and they never will be. And if you think otherwise I hope you have running water to apply to the burns you're gonna get like the TCW lads here, or like I did.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
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.