Valhalla_Thor wrote:I would like to know in what way zorg thinks the farewell hits are fair?

Only the big can make the hit becoming stronger in the process, while the rest are even deprived the good future farm.

If one is give the oportunity to build a fleet should it then not be also the right to give it away?

For us, it is blatant milking. We tried to stop them. The playerbase thought otherwise though and we have came to a compromise which is the current Fleet Crashing on Retirement rule.

This rules, simplified means 2 things:
-Players get to choose what their fleet will become.
-Players know before hand that the account gifting the fleet will be 100% banned afterwards.

It is worth noting, that administration (as in all cases anyway) ALWAYS reserves the right to ban involved accounts if it feels that it is over the top.

Sprog wrote:So player A buys (on behalf of player B) an account (player C) whilst already having an active account...

Player B then crashes the account he actually paid for himself (player C)...are you stating this is now allowed ?

There is no multiplay involved in the incident you speak of.

Zorg wrote:

Sprog wrote:So player A buys (on behalf of player B) an account (player C) whilst already having an active account...

Player B then crashes the account he actually paid for himself (player C)...are you stating this is now allowed ?

There is no multiplay involved in the incident you speak of.

I think I am missing something here. But, if a player crashes a fleet that he has paid for in to his other account then surely there must be multi playing, even to a minor degree at some point? To crash one account you must log in, the account that it is being crashed in to, logged in, even if only moments later. So, two accounts in operation?

Unless I am missing something.

Zorg wrote:

Valhalla_Thor wrote:I would like to know in what way zorg thinks the farewell hits are fair?

Only the big can make the hit becoming stronger in the process, while the rest are even deprived the good future farm.

If one is give the oportunity to build a fleet should it then not be also the right to give it away?

For us, it is blatant milking. We tried to stop them. The playerbase thought otherwise though and we have came to a compromise which is the current Fleet Crashing on Retirement rule.

This rules, simplified means 2 things:
-Players get to choose what their fleet will become.
-Players know before hand that the account gifting the fleet will be 100% banned afterwards.

It is worth noting, that administration (as in all cases anyway) ALWAYS reserves the right to ban involved accounts if it feels that it is over the top.

Seems fair enough, but what is "over the top"??

If this practice IS allowed, then surely we would have to know the limits of what is allowed. Boundaries must be laid down, otherwise one player would be okay to do this, another, for the sake of 1000 points may not be okay to do this?

I would like to know if Zorg ever reviews rules and addition over time?

For example during the last war between Valhalla and AZGD an addition was made by a moderator stating.
Amendment:- Any player joining an alliance more than 24hrs after the declaration has been posted (unless previously declared) is still classed as a mercenary

Normally a war is without end, so this would mean that any players
including new players would be not be apart of the war.

I would like to think rules are discussed with the community rather then just put down by an individual moderator.

mightyoz wrote: I think I am missing something here. But, if a player crashes a fleet that he has paid for in to his other account then surely there must be multi playing, even to a minor degree at some point? To crash one account you must log in, the account that it is being crashed in to, logged in, even if only moments later. So, two accounts in operation?

Unless I am missing something.

There are no such logins in the case you speak of.
For us, there is no difference if someone has received something to gift his fleet on retirement or not. This is a chapter we cannot police for all transactions therefore we do not police it for any.

For those that ask us to stop the fleet crashing on retirement, at the other topic, we agree. We do not know of a way to police this though. At least, right now, we avoid excuses of the style "It was a legitimate hit and not a gifting.". At least now, we can ban one of the account right away, no questions asked. Tell me a way of how would you tell if the hit was fabricated or not and consider it done.

Zorg wrote:

Sprog wrote:So player A buys (on behalf of player B) an account (player C) whilst already having an active account...

Player B then crashes the account he actually paid for himself (player C)...are you stating this is now allowed ?

There is no multiplay involved in the incident you speak of.

Is what I asked allowed or not?

mightyoz wrote: Seems fair enough, but what is "over the top"??

If this practice IS allowed, then surely we would have to know the limits of what is allowed. Boundaries must be laid down, otherwise one player would be okay to do this, another, for the sake of 1000 points may not be okay to do this?

The rules are the boundaries. When someone gets to close to the borderline or does something that is not described in the rules but still a cheat in our thinking, then we do not need a rule to issue a ban.

Most rules require interpretation and tailoring to the case. This is what administration does. For example,administration tends to be less strict on a newcomer in rules enforcement as a newcomer is not really aware of what is wrong and right. You need to first talk and explain and if he ignores you, then issue a penalty.

Valhalla_Thor wrote:I would like to know if Zorg ever reviews rules and addition over time?

For example during the last war between Valhalla and AZGD an addition was made by a moderator stating.
Amendment:- Any player joining an alliance more than 24hrs after the declaration has been posted (unless previously declared) is still classed as a mercenary

Normally a war is without end, so this would mean that any players
including new players would be not be apart of the war.

I would like to think rules are discussed with the community rather then just put down by an individual moderator.

You are right at this. I have already created a topic about and I have informed all moderators that any war rule change must come through consent and not from individuals. If consent cannot be reached, the war rules must stay as they are.

Sprog wrote:

Zorg wrote:

Sprog wrote:So player A buys (on behalf of player B) an account (player C) whilst already having an active account...

Player B then crashes the account he actually paid for himself (player C)...are you stating this is now allowed ?

There is no multiplay involved in the incident you speak of.

Is what I asked allowed or not?

Let me see:
Player A buys account from Player C whilst already having an active account.
This is multiplay, no need to read further. It is not allowed.