Re: DORO
Maxi said:
I quote the (hopefully soon-to-be) Rulebook:
* You cannot attack any other player if the attack has been "staged" at all - in other words, if the person you are attacking has somehow "agreed" to you attacking them, like a mutual attack. This especially refers to times when this is used in an abusive manner - to trade "free land" with people, to get "free troops" through use of bribing, to gain easy effectiveness, bounty, or lawfulness, to get a bounty removed from your own head, to get anti-rape to come when it wouldn't have done otherwise, to make a valid attacker lose lawfulness when they would have gained it, etc. etc.
This is what I am arguing for. An obvious statement that mutually triggering AR is against the rules. Some of you may think that I am using this as a loophole or excuse for doing it, which is BS, as I have already stated that I am arguing that the definition is not clear enough. The fact that people are arguing against this opinion baffles me, as it can only help clarify the rules to the playerbase.
Hobbezak said:
EULA said:
4. You may not mutually agree to give or receive in game land or in game staff/units/troops from your Account to any other Account or from any other Account to your Account, nor may you mutually agree to any attacks whereby both attacker and defender have agreed it is purely to modify any in-game statistics which includes but is not limited to honour, fame, most distracted, most disabled. Any breach of the definition of "land farming" (mutually agreeing to in game land exchanges from or to your Account) "troop trading" (mutually agreeing to in game staff/units/troops exchanges from or to your Account) or "pre-arranged attacks" (whereby all attackers and defenders have agreed to the attack beforehand with the intent of minimal losses purely to gain in-game statistics such as honour, fame, most distracted, most disabled etc.) can result in you losing access to your Account permanently.
Indeed, mutual triggering is not specifically mentioned. But pre-arranged attacks are, and mutually agreed attacks to edit in-game statistics are too. I think it's obvious one would conclude that even though mutual triggering is never specifically mentioned, it's either under the pre-arranged attacks, or against the spirit of the EULA.
As you point out it is not specifically mentioned, which IMO is the route of this issue. How can such a loathed rule breaking tactic not receive a mention in the rules? Land farming does, troop trading does, but not mutually triggering AR. At the very least in this sentence:
EULA said:
(whereby all attackers and defenders have agreed to the attack beforehand with the intent of minimal losses purely to gain in-game statistics such as honour, fame, most distracted, most disabled etc.)
should have the statistics of 'Total land had stole','Biggest land drop in a tick' and 'Biggest value drop in a tick' included, as this then makes it more clear that mutually triggering AR falls into this bracket.
Hobbezak said:
I find it funny you try to get into a victim role. "People are mean to me :'("
I haven't tried to get in a victim role as you put it. I've pointed out that certain people have not approached the matter with the maturity that should be expected from the older/more experienced playerbase.
Hobbezak said:
you make pretty nice comments towards toby, so for someone who's advocating the importance of a friendly community, you manage to come across to me as a textbook example of a hypocrite.
My comments towards Toby are tame when compared to being called a retard in IRC. I appreciate that you probably haven't seen the full picture, so wont hold your opinion of hipocracy against you
Hobbezak said:
Both in the way you deliberately try to bend the EULA to your own means, and in the way you make the same hostile comments as those you're reacting to.
I stated earlier that I'm trying to point out the ambiguity of the rules, can you tell me how this is bending the EULA to my means?? Secondly I think I've been quite fair in the comments I've written and would really like an example of the 'hostile' posts I have made :roll:
Hobbezak said:
As I said, you cannot read the EULA and not see that it's against the spirit of the EULA. In fact, you cannot play this game and not feel that it's against the spirit of the game.
When I started playing this game there were a number of things that I thought 'that can't be right' about, but apparently are. Bashing someone 30% of your score, farming the same person over and over for land kicking someone from an Alliance and then killing their troops and taking their land. All of these are morally questionable, but at the same time accepted as part of the game. Why would mutual triggering be any different unless clearly stated in the rules? I think the problem that the older playerbase is having is that they are blinded by their in depth knowledge of the game and are unable to put themselves in the position of someone new to the game. If they could then maybe they would realise that the rules are not as crystal clear as they believe them to be.
