Jump to content

So, Let's Analyze


hidude45454
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good thread as normal hidude. I would be interested seeing as many of the people mentioned have forums accounts and some being gov I would be interested in there response to this.

  • Upvote 2

Why our you reading this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hidude45454 said:

Manitoba South: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=166562 -- declared 5 wars, of which 1 was force-peaced. The force-peaced defender had max ships. Ground suicided in two war, launched 8 missiles over the span of 4 days in the other two. So, falls in the same category as Tappin, USNAR, and Santa Cruz.

To be fair, I think the people in that category have every right to appeal their strikes, and I can't say with 100% certainty they entered those wars planning to do nothing the entire war, although there is evidence to disprove if that was the case. Regardless, even ignoring those wars, there are still tons of examples showing tS especially planned on declaring wars with no attacks whatsoever and solely the intention to get beiged.

 

Alex has agreed to reverse his decision in my war (still waiting on him to do so), because he made the moderation decision earlier than he should've.

Now whether or not people agree with this model of slot filling decisions, this is not how its been done in previous Globals, and Alex has once again made a decision to moderate in a way that goes against how the game has been played historically in the middle of an ongoing war. If he wants to change the way he's interpreting his own rules, he should do that outside of a global and give clear indications of his intentions.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hate to say it but I actually agree with ro$e on this. My understanding has always been that slotfilling is defined as when 2 allies make an agreement to go to war with the intent of filling defensive slots so their enemies can't declare on them. I know that in the past I made a slotfilling report over "purchasing" bounties. The difference was that there was actual collaboration between the combatants and my concern was that if allowed to continue, it would ruin the bounty mechanic. I think it's perfectly understandable to try and get beiged by your adversaries when you're in a losing position. That's just smart strategy. If hollywood is concerned about ro$e getting to much beige, they should show some restraint and learn to properly beige cycle so that it's not an issue. I'm disappointed that they would prefer to instead use moderation as a weapon.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hidude45454 said:

 

Love ya Clown, I'm not a hypocrite and admit my beige history is pretty much the same for reasons I don't need to get into here, but seems a bit suspicious you'd pick this target if not to stack beige, doubly so given he has a 1000 infra average, hmm?

 

Is.. is it against the rules to fish for beige time? I could have sworn it wasn't. Not tryin to be troll I'm actually a bit confused on this atm.

Edit : nvm, pablo's reply wasn't on my screen when i posted this.

Edited by SleepingNinja
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Joe Schmo said:

If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you.

No inquiries were made to them at all about this, they've been hitting us this entire war starting from the blitz. Not sure how that isnt a valid target to declare a war on at that point. They surely arent our allies here as the rule points out that isn't allowed.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SleepingNinja said:

Is.. is it against the rules to fish for beige time? I could have sworn it wasn't. Not tryin to be troll I'm actually a bit confused on this atm.

Edit : nvm, pablo's reply wasn't on my screen when i posted this.

 

17 minutes ago, Pablo said:

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

Admittedly this part makes it seem like that would be against the rules. Although it could be interpreted that ro$e intends to fight but not win. Either way, trying to get beiged when you're losing is a key part of the game's meta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Avatar Patrick said:

 

Admittedly this part makes it seem like that would be against the rules. Although it could be interpreted that ro$e intends to fight but not win. Either way, trying to get beiged when you're losing is a key part of the game's meta.

I was honestly just concerned to see if I was doing it but going by the last global I was in that's not the case for me. I know I ignored wars but looking back they were all defensive slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

You missed this bit below, Pablo.

This is how he has defined it for years, it's nothing new. Fight, you're fine. Sit and/or only fortify, you're not. And he generally gives time to see if you'll do anything. It's not generally 12 MAPs and he's immediately on your ass.

I'm glad the ones that were clearly wrong were corrected, however.

You and I have been playing long enough and understand the game well enough to know what's the true purpose of this rule Adri. The real purpose and point of this rule is what I outlined in my last post, and I think anyone that understands the game can agree on this.

The only real use for this is to prevent someone from not being able to be countered, period. Here the nations on the receiving end are not getting any benefit, since:

  1. They rarely get triple slotted (and I say rarely, giving the benefit of the doubt, but it probably has't happened, so never), thus the target in question can still be attacked.
  2. We don't really have any means to fight convenitionally to be affected by this.
  3. If anything, we should be the ones reporting our members for making your nations hard to hit😛

Also Rule #4 should be interpreted as a whole, and not just the first sentence, or just the second half. You can see how Alex elaborates more about the real uses and specific cases if you further read, so just taking the first part is going against to the spirit of the rule.

Now, the moderation team and Alex can choose to be obtuse, but really just think for a second what benefit these nations are getting, and how it is impacting gameplay. Then think if this is really fair moderation, in the sense that if it is really addreasing a problem or not. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pablo said:

You and I have been playing long enough and understand the game well enough to know what's the true purpose of this rule Adri. The real purpose and point of this rule is what I outlined in my last post, and I think anyone that understands the game can agree on this.

The only real use for this is to prevent someone from not being able to be countered, period. Here the nations on the receiving end are not getting any benefit, since:

  1. They rarely get triple slotted (and I say rarely, giving the benefit of the doubt, but it probably has't happened, so never), thus the target in question can still be attacked.
  2. We don't really have any means to fight convenitionally to be affected by this.
  3. If anything, we should be the ones reporting our members for making your nations hard to hit😛

Also Rule #4 should be interpreted as a whole, and not just the first sentence, or just the second half. You can see how Alex elaborates more about the real uses and specific cases if you further read, so just taking the first part is going against to the spirit of the rule.

Now, the moderation team and Alex can choose to be obtuse, but really just think for a second what benefit these nations are getting, and how it is impacting gameplay. Then think if this is really fair moderation, in the sense that if it is really addreasing a problem or not. 

We've also been playing long enough to understand how Alex moderates these. Like I said, it's nothing new. That's the only part of this I'm taking issue with, this attitude of being like "oh, this is changing midwar". It's not, it's been this way for years.

If you think that it should be approached differently, that's another story. I agree with you on the purpose of the rule and if people have ideas for a better way of handling it, I would hope Alex would be all ears. I, however, don't really.

  • Upvote 6

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone that has been repeatedly forced peace and nation striked for war slot filling and trying every way imaginable to get around it.. I can say for sure this is nothing new, and since nation strikes expire these days it is not even that bad tbqh. As others have said it is very hard to enforce this rule and often if the war slot filling does not get reported you can easily get away with it... It has been this way since I was raiding in 2016 in Arrgh.

Probably should get changed tbqh if even possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Horsecock said:

I think the discussion is getting to a more productive state now. So, should the rule only be enforced when the intent was to fill someone's slots specifically for their benefit? The obvious glaring problem with trying to do it that way is that it would realistically be impossible for the admin (or whoever reports it, since the admins likely wouldn't put any effort into investigating it) to prove intent, so it would be easy to abuse.

imo the rule already tries to cover this, it outlines the cases where it is a punishable offense. If the moderator enforcing the rule has a basic understanding of how the game works and does some basic research, it should be easy to decide in most cases. If the nation who is striked thinks it was a bad judgement, they can scale it and open a ticket, so that more mods can weight in and make a final decision. It should be at the mods discreation, provided they understand how the game works. I honestly thought this rule had been applied like this all this time.

 

2 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

We've also been playing long enough to understand how Alex moderates these. Like I said, it's nothing new. That's the only part of this I'm taking issue with, this attitude of being like "oh, this is changing midwar". It's not, it's been this way for years.

If you think that it should be approached differently, that's another story. I agree with you on the purpose of the rule and if people have ideas for a better way of handling it, I would hope Alex would be all ears. I, however, don't really.

You have to admit this hasn't happened before to this scale, probably since NPOLT, and I am personally not saying X or Y are doing, it could be your sphere, it could be HoF, it could be some random people who are not even involved, it might be organized, it might be just individuals, but the purpose of my post is to try to get this to stop and not to point fingers, because this is weaponizing moderation, and I will be very pissed off if any of my members or allies ends up being banned because the moderation team is garbage and chooses to entertain these sort of reports. Hopefully, Alex changes his mind and moderates better this rule.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this could be resolved by adding a clause that explicitly states "it's not against the rules to attack your enemies" period

It would be up to the mods to determine who's considered an "enemy"

Edited by Avatar Patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the events over the last 24 hours, this is absolutely [email protected]#$ed.

 

I will take this time to say if all wars ended in beige, we wouldn't need to enforce beige-fishing moderation rules though.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When your whole intention is to get beiged in a war, why force people to pretend they are fighting or they declared with intention to win or even fight in the first place?
what purpose does it serve? It is pretty obvious there are wars that are declared to lose and it is not exclusive to an alliance or a sphere.

As hc pointed out, how do you prove intent, esp in wars where a zeroed nation declares on a militarized pirate? Apart from that how do you prove that the attacked nation got any benefit with that war or they were in agreement?

Just now, Joe Schmo said:

If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you.

If you're implying an agreement there was none and you should feel bad for proposing it, while I would love being paid to beige people I usually do it for free and often without their consent.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Pablo said:

You have to admit this hasn't happened before to this scale, probably since NPOLT

But Rose was doing this exact same thing against Arrgh and KT and getting striked for it during Guns and Roses? I do not understand at all how there's an outcry for a lack of precedent when this is the same shit Rose peddles out every war when they have no other options

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Joe Schmo said:

If Ro$e hit up arrgh and hof members for the express reason of beige baiting, then crying "alex is big meanie make turret illegal" when he rightfully calls them out, then all I've got to say is man, I'm very dissapointed by Ro$e. Don't make this a trend, either. We will witch hunt you.

HoF blitzed Celestial at time of the war's inception. They did enough damage to both the military and blitzed nations to negate any form of claim that HoF slot filled Celestial. It's both amusing and disappointing this is the point you've decided to hone in on.

Edited by Tartarus
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In guerilla wars, I've declared on nations I didn't intend to fight for a few days. The assumption would be that I'd get beiged by another nation first and I wanted to still have wars going I could nuke/missile in (as you can't declare wars while beige without leaving the protected color).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tartarus said:

HoF blitzed both HW and Celestial at time of the war's inception. They did enough damage to both the military and blitzed nations to negate any form of claim that HoF slot filled Celestial. It's both amusing and disappointing this is the point you've decided to hone in on.

After a cursory by-hand glimpse at the HoF wars page since the start of the war on June 29th, 2022, I have found a grand total of:

7, wars against Hollywood nations. I think one or two of these were within 48 hours of the blitz.

Hundreds, against Celestial, including near a hundred, maybe beyond, I don't have sheets and I'm sure as shit not counting all of these by hand, on the day of the blitz.

 

But yeah no they totally blitzed both sides! They're totally fighting both Actively! You can tell because while fighting a victorious militarized sphere outnumbering them 12:1 they're getting bored and clubbing Polaris and random micros while having full military!

Not to say that they slotfilled, but this rhetoric implies they've been even close to evenly hitting both sides and therefore it's ridiculous for Ro$e to target them. This is what HC has been trying to claim.

Yeah, no. Please stop reiterating this total and complete nonsense. It is blatantly and patently false, let's not contribute to it spreading.

Edited by Zei-Sakura Alsainn
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
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...
 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.