Confirmation of Poll result

DeletedUser4

Guest
[tt]
Point 1 and 2 are agreed as shown below.

1. Clarification of the word Internal in relation to sit accounts - this means the villages are for the tribe the account is in, if you wish to give your villages to another tribe whilst under a tribe lock situation then you have to play your own account whilst its broken up.

2. When in a tribe lock world no sitters outside the tribe will be allowed, should a sitter be set that is not part of your tribe then a duke can ticket the support system to have your sit ended.


Point 3 Not agreed to, the tribe lock will remain in place.

My apologies again

Tracey[/tt]
 

DeletedUser

Guest
An excellent conclusion to this, and hopefully a standard to be set for all future tribelock worlds. Thank you very much for everything Tracey <3 :)
 

DeletedUser8815

Guest
Yes, I would concur.

but can I ask what would happen in this scenario.

player A sets an outside sitter

duke puts in a ticket

sit is ended

then player A continually resets sitter
 

DeletedUser

Guest
then the duke sends in tickets as and when needed, I'd assume.
 

DeletedUser8815

Guest
monday 10am player gives sit to opposing tribe
monday 10.30 duke notices and puts in ticket
monday 1500 ticket picked up by mods and sit cancelled
monday 1505 player resets sitter
monday 1550 duke notices and puts in ticket
monday 1900 ticket picked up by mods and sit ended
monday 1905 player resets sitter

me thinks you need to have a penalty for this scenario and make it known before the situation arises.
 

DeletedUser7369

Guest
yes. i suggest that on putting in a ticket the outside sit is ended. if a sit is then reset a second time the account should be banned and unable to be attacked until it goes barb. instigating the usual free for all!
 

DeletedUser1762

Guest
cant tweak the uk10 script to only allow tribesmate to sit? just like you cant defend other villages except for tribesmates? i forgot to vote.. :S
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i hear this tribe lock world actually isnt a tribe lock world as you can be booted from a tribe to be internalled.....whats the point in playing a tribe lock if this can happen, pathetic
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Makes sense though. I don't see why whole tribes should be punished due to individuals needing to quit.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Drunky Monkey said:
Makes sense though. I don't see why whole tribes should be punished due to individuals needing to quit.
Click to expand...

The whole point of tribelock was that tribes make sure they take on players that are committed. That's the only reason why I still play UK10, I don't play TW out of joy anymore (pay-for-villages, take a bow), I only play out of sense of duty and loyalty to my friends in EvoLTR, and because I take great pleasure in watching everybody fail while trying futilely to dislodge me from K55 (a fact that GIXXER fails to realise).

I don't think tribes that haven't organised themselves appropriately before tribelock should get off scot-free. They should suffer for their failures. EvoLTR accounts went barb but you didn't hear us complaining that we were unable to internal.
 

DeletedUser7369

Guest
Drunky Monkey said:
Makes sense though. I don't see why whole tribes should be punished due to individuals needing to quit.
Click to expand...

just because thats what the rules say is the simple answer. rules are pretty clear on this world. tribelock in place means no leaving tribes. yet somehow certain accounts have managed it not once but twice. maybe if they get attacked they can rejoin so they receive support and then leave again. clearly thats what is meant when a tribelock and no outside support world is announced.....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
i am losing faith in this world, the mods for myself is ruining this world. its simple, tribe lock = no leave, its that easy.....so why on earth are they letting people to leave a TRIBE LOCK world to get internalled.....its a flaw and someone is to blame for this.
good setting....bad running simples (meerkat squeek)
 

DeletedUser4479

Guest
He left the tribe twice in one week. The 1st time he rejoined shortly after the remove. Then goes 5 days later and war time there nobles to land at 23:00 on his villages lol so there planning stuff with the mods then? like 9 villages in 1min from load of far ranged players. Then loads more over the next 30mins. This has been planned.
He also made his own tribe so tribe lock my arse ticket a GM get removed then go join some other tribe. Nice rules.
 

DeletedUser5582

Guest
The externals are not really the place for this. If you are unhappy then put an ingame support ticket in and if unhappy with that then mark it for Tracey's attention.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
LightyJo said:
The externals are not really the place for this. If you are unhappy then put an ingame support ticket in and if unhappy with that then mark it for Tracey's attention.
Click to expand...

this is where it should be jo, the externals are to say our opinions. :icon_rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser7369

Guest
I would query why Tracey made the post here rather than under announcements thread if it wasnt for discussion. This is clearly a hot topic and therefore different opinions are of interest and should definitely be discussed. Of course all opinions other than mine are wrong but people can still share them.

For me this world is falsely advertised as a tribelock world as players can hop in and out as it suits them when being internalled. hardly much of a lock is it.
 

DeletedUser5582

Guest
belstars said:
this is where it should be jo, the externals are to say our opinions. :icon_rolleyes:
Click to expand...

yes they are. However, complaints about ingame decisions are not and that was what was saying should go on an ingame ticket marked for Tracey's attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top