SPY wrote: we are not arguing to let a thief go but to protect an innocent cause the rule says thieves and innocent are alike.

I say gamewise its the game's responsibility that things like this do not demoralize a player and make them lose faith and quit. once again do not take the above scenario for model only ... there could be way more incidences already happened that we were not informed off as i said in one of my previous posts.

Exactly. Players know that they can't be straight off kicked then crashed, then they feel more encouraged to A. be in an alliance and B. keep playing

This is just my view but the game does tend to promote being in an alliance, since if you stay solo you have more possible foes than if you are in a decent alliance. Hence this idea

ok i have an ammendment to the idea. why not make that optional when a leader creates the alliance?

if this rule may be used or may not. if an alliance have this rule and a player do not like it he will skip it. otherwise get in that alliance on your own risk.

I can only say again that the proposed rule would not protect a player from being attacked by his own alliance. They would just attack him first and THEN kick him. My point is that the rule will not be EFFECTIVE; it will not accomplish the desired result.

SpacemanSpiff wrote:I can only say again that the proposed rule would not protect a player from being attacked by his own alliance. They would just attack him first and THEN kick him. My point is that the rule will not be EFFECTIVE; it will not accomplish the desired result.

Thank you spacemanspiff for putting it that way. you have actually cleared out that after that rule is enforced there wont be any gray area about underplay/unsportsmanlike game play. it basically takes out the disputes and drama out of it.

"with this rule you either did something wrong or you didnt. now deal with it or be dealt with."

i think i will like to play with a bit more of distinct area for a game which is governed by mathematics.

Seeing as you mentioned me personally..I will give my opinion. In principle I agree with your suggestion DR. However I can not see why ZE would implement this.It has no real vale, more over would kill the game.

Based on the following facts.. It does not matter what game is played the rules are set by the inventor or originator of the game.. (This is how it has always been)
You either play the game by these rules or you don\'t (many people have then changed rules to suit them selves thus you have variants of the same game).
Like all rules of a game you will always find someone who will decide to bend or break them, or simply misuse them.
Take your idea.. I have already thought of away to use this rule if implemented. Say I have a team member who has not log in and his fleet is down.. Instead of crushing his fleet as PK did or as Rag has agreed would be OK. I simple kick him from the alliance.. thus preventing him from being attacked..for what 24hrs thus saving his fleet. This would be using the rule for other than you suggest..The idea is you fleet save and are online when you fleet returns. There would be very little game play left if all an alliance had to do to protect their members is kick them and then reinstate them when they log in.

As spacemanspliff has already stated there would be nothing stopping Me (as I am the main person everyone seems to be aiming this post at) from crushing someone then kicking them. what punishment will I suffer..to be hated by all players (already am )

As SPY stated no one is interested in my excuses..lol not excuses SPY reasons.. You all talk about stabbing a friend in the back.. you are right because that is what RJ did to all his so called friends in IB.. if you play with no honour do not expect any in return.. As Gumppy stated everyone should fleet save if you are not me..


Ok flame on...lol

as Rag has agreed would be OK.

I ONLY SAY OK if that person SAYS ITS OK like player 1 and player 2 ... player 2 tells his mates if my fleet is down more than an hour and you CANT GET A HOLD OF ME then crash it and send me DF when I come online.

NOT okay if player 2 says even if Im not online dont crash my fleet.


TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ..

I have told a few ppl if I dont make it online at this time you can crash my fleet and recy it for me. And Only those people would it be OKAY FOR THEM TO DO SO.

I cant even remember what PK done for you to put me in what he done.

I say the decision of crashing an alliance mate is on you. You must note it doesn't just hurt you it hurts the whole. So I'm still thinking this should not be placed in game, this rule should be followed from respect and if you don't your not a respectful player. You should know your alliance and its more of a bond than anything. So this being apply as a rule wouldn't be a good addition to the game, and if its to stop drama, this still wont help, if its to keep things fair it was a great thought but I'm still a no.

Gozar wrote: Take your idea.. I have already thought of away to use this rule if implemented. Say I have a team member who has not log in and his fleet is down.. Instead of crushing his fleet as PK did or as Rag has agreed would be OK. I simple kick him from the alliance.. thus preventing him from being attacked..for what 24hrs thus saving his fleet. This would be using the rule for other than you suggest..The idea is you fleet save and are online when you fleet returns. There would be very little game play left if all an alliance had to do to protect their members is kick them and then reinstate them when they log in.

I think you misinterpret the suggestion on how the rule could be applied. It wont save the player from attacks from outside alliance or alliance mates wont be saved from other alliances/players alike. So just to save someones fleet while he is down kicking him would just make him more vulnerable as he will lose the alliance credentials.

About game play... taking down an offline player i believe, i do not find any game play in there. rather giving him time to wake up then try to crash him after that 24 hour period takes alot of guts and game play brain storming. Same goes for player leaving an alliance while his alliance mates are sleeping.

Gozar wrote:As spacemanspliff has already stated there would be nothing stopping Me (as I am the main person everyone seems to be aiming this post at) from crushing someone then kicking them. what punishment will I suffer..to be hated by all players (already am )

The idea is you may not get the justification from the game player pool or the cry for sympathy to your cause will be seen either wrong or the right one. cause that is what obviously matters to you to justify your actions... we have seen the CR post. If it were not for it you wouldnt be posting it.

Gozar wrote:As SPY stated no one is interested in my excuses..lol not excuses SPY reasons.. You all talk about stabbing a friend in the back.. you are right because that is what RJ did to all his so called friends in IB.. if you play with no honour do not expect any in return.. As Gumppy stated everyone should fleet save if you are not me..

I think you are hung up on one occasion where you were involved. In the above threads we are arguing over all possible scenarios. you did both of the hits with bellow the gut hits.

I was trying to keep this post from becoming a justification of your action but seems it is inevitable so I will add this, if RJ had cheated i havent seen admin banning him. It would seem that you are taking yourself to be judge jury and executioner in game. If it doesnt follow your rules you get to do anything. That my friend is taking advantage and that is what we are trying to prevent from happening. Secondly before RJ you have taken down GWD, and the reason being was that GWD might have given his account across alliance to make it more interesting in game. You cried about bringing the game play up but you failed to show it yourself by not respecting a fellow alliance mate's decision. I see that you have taken the liberty of making decisions for others. It seems you are only doing what you want and no matter what a player decision is you want them to follow you blindly. No exceptions. When you take an alliance decision keeping 1 target player out of the decision that is not called alliance decision. that is called taking advantage of that players trust and back stabbing him. Some may call it cheating on moral ground.

you have mentioned PK's action, once again it is not PK rather EZT who made that inside crash happen. If it were pk alone and EZT hadnt been backing him up pk wouldnt be in ezt after that action. And by EZT which also includes tiny_the_great as you might have noticed he is still a proud member of EZT. That is what alliance bond is about and respecting its rules.

I believe in giving the freedom to a player to chose what he would want from the game, but that do not mean he get to find all the in between "loop holes" in game to take advantage of. If an alliance mate wants to move out of the alliance we appreciate the courtesy of letting the fellow members know of his intention and we let them go and treat him as our own as long as he is a member of my alliance and wearing the tag. Not find a way to take down his fleet right away either by kicking him out and taking myself out of the alliance and then crash him. If someone did that... and claim it was to play fair... "BY THE BOOK!!!" then i am really sorry that it is time to change the book.

I hope considering everyones point of view ZE admin will see to it that this rule is necessary for a fair play in game. The reason why asked all the alliance leaders to put forth their views was so that what ever decision is made they are aware of it. This suggestion let it not be approved or denied only per popularity by voting but also take consideration of the importance of play fair. Cause there will be some time when rule needs to be enforced that might not be appreciated by many but is necessary.

Once again no flames intended, we are trying to keep this thread from getting carried away. please keep it reasonable.

By the way, thinking about this some more, I find it strange that you proposed a rule that only protects a player AFTER he has been kicked by an alliance and not DURING his stay in the alliance. Would it not make more sense to have a rule that states you cannot attack someone in the same alliance as yourself, and that this protection lasts for 24hrs after the break of association? I am not coming down in favor of this (I think the issues of trust and betrayal have been part of every war game I have ever played and I am not sure that it would be a positive thing to eliminate this aspect from a war game), but I am saying it would make more sense than just protecting someone after they have been kicked.

ever heard of moon shot exchange? also if a player is in the alliance doesnt that automatically qualify as a trust worthy ally?

it only turns void when the alliance tag is taken off. not in alliance means not in the ally list anything can happen.

but i will entertain your idea, you find a way to work around the moon shot exchange suggestion we will amend that to this idea to make it as you have suggested.