Zorg wrote:Yes. We have reversed all earnings in a similar case before while we still banned the gifting account.

So only one account gets banned then? Everyone I have spoken to thought otherwise as under Rule 3 it states:-


"Involved accounts that violate this rule, will be terminated."

http://www.zorgempire.net/forums/viewto ... =5&t=10406

Sprog wrote:

Zorg wrote:Yes. We have reversed all earnings in a similar case before while we still banned the gifting account.

So only one account gets banned then? Everyone I have spoken to thought otherwise as under Rule 3 it states:-


"Involved accounts that violate this rule, will be terminated."

http://www.zorgempire.net/forums/viewto ... =5&t=10406

I stated what we have done in a case I remember not what the rule states. A single decision does not change the rule. So, do not assume that only one account gets banned; assume what the rule states.

Always remember that administration might issue heavier or softer penalties depending on the history of the violating player. For example, we tend to be quite reasonable on first time violations.

As a game evolves, there are always individuals or groups that try to advance in the game through questionable tactics. This happens in every online game.

As administration, you have to always evaluate the new tactics and decide whether this is allowed or not. We prefer to avoid adding new rules on these instances. In the same time, you cannot outright demand the head of such a player whenever this happens ( although administration always reserves the right to ban ).

The rule of the thumb for all rules is that every account must be played to each own best interests. This is what milking is all about. Obviously, a retired account is in contrary to this. However, we all agreed here to allow this. There is nothing more we can do in these cases. Searching for details is futile. The main rule in the latest case is Fleet Crash on retirement. Existing universes will have to continue with this set of rules (more or less) which however are far stricter in comparison to the new universe in the makings.

Thanks for the guesture, its really appricated to be able to ask some questions.
I did not like some answer but since this is not a discussion but a "ask your moderator" session, and i am still pleased with the answer.

Thanks for listening and answering my questions.
I guess being a moderator is not being very appriciated and always be on the defending side.

I would like to express my gratitude toward all of you for doing a fine job.
and because this is a question session i will ask you my final question and i do not expect an answer on it.

Do you think a moderator should play the game?
and yes i think you guys should be paid for it

Moderating on a game you love, it does not need payment.

I am a player, I love this game. If being a moderator meant I could not play, then I would not moderate.

Thor, you have to look at yourself. You post in the forums. You are as much keeping the forums alive as anybody else. Thank you for posting. Whether everybody is ever in agreement with each other is irrelevant. If everybody thought the same, the world would be boring


Hence why the forums can be the place it is. Keep posting.

You mean forum mods? Yes, they must play the game. Why not after all?

Zorg,

Player A sees Player B's fleet sitting. Player A and Player B are in the same alliance. Player A crashes player B's fleet after he sees the 15 min next to the players name in the alliance list. Is there a rule against this? If not, why not? There should be either a) a rule stating that alliance mates are not allowed to crash each other or b) remove the option of seeing whether a player is on or off.

I spoke already of this. This is what usage Fleet crashing on retirement has for administration.

Maybe you misunderstood me, I was asking if there is a rule against alliance mates crashing each other just so no one else can get the fleet? Both players continue to play the game.

MegaMedes wrote:Maybe you misunderstood me, I was asking if there is a rule against alliance mates crashing each other just so no one else can get the fleet? Both players continue to play the game.

I think you mean just like REDACTED did or are you referring to"another" again ?


~Edited by Megamedes, "soft" warning for rules violation:

Zorg wrote: Avoid using real player names if you want to ask on a specific event that took place. Administration will respond what we did in every case and why we did it.

To bring up a past event, use Player X did this and you did that. Why?