DeletedUser5582
Guest
Which part of my post is not clear? Discussion of the tribe lock (rusty or otherwise) is fine. Posting about ingame mod decisions is not.
Now I don't want to remove posts, send folk to the naughty step etc etc. If in doubt then read this
Now if you still have any questions about this then PM/skype me or speak to Jp68plus1
Now I don't want to remove posts, send folk to the naughty step etc etc. If in doubt then read this
Moderation
The moderators (mods) of the forum are volunteers recruited by the admin and/or community manager.
Moderator: Only have rights in the specific forums they moderate, nowhere else. They will moderate fairly and will answer any questions you have that they are able to.
Elder moderator: Overseers of the moderators, these people are the ones to go to if you have a problem with any of the forum-level moderation or if you have any questions on moderation in general.
In game moderators are not connected to the forum.
If you have a problem with the moderation of any subforum or the forum in general, please do not create a topic about it. Contact an elder moderator with your problem and we will either explain the reasons or do our best to solve the problem should one exist. Creating topics only serves to increase public unrest and will not solve any problems.
If you wish to create a topic regarding moderation, please contact the relevant moderator or elder moderator first. You may find a list of all moderators and their assigned forums in this overview.
The mods have a very tough job: It can be hard to keep the balance between a clean forum and a fun forum on a daily basis, and they also receive a lot of negative comments and abuse regularly. We would ask that you remain patient with all moderators and that you would be helpful and polite when talking to them; this will make their job that much easier, and in turn make the forum a more pleasant place.
A Mod and/or Elder Mod, will never play a world that they mod on, to prevent bias.
The moderators (mods) of the forum are volunteers recruited by the admin and/or community manager.
Moderator: Only have rights in the specific forums they moderate, nowhere else. They will moderate fairly and will answer any questions you have that they are able to.
Elder moderator: Overseers of the moderators, these people are the ones to go to if you have a problem with any of the forum-level moderation or if you have any questions on moderation in general.
In game moderators are not connected to the forum.
If you have a problem with the moderation of any subforum or the forum in general, please do not create a topic about it. Contact an elder moderator with your problem and we will either explain the reasons or do our best to solve the problem should one exist. Creating topics only serves to increase public unrest and will not solve any problems.
If you wish to create a topic regarding moderation, please contact the relevant moderator or elder moderator first. You may find a list of all moderators and their assigned forums in this overview.
The mods have a very tough job: It can be hard to keep the balance between a clean forum and a fun forum on a daily basis, and they also receive a lot of negative comments and abuse regularly. We would ask that you remain patient with all moderators and that you would be helpful and polite when talking to them; this will make their job that much easier, and in turn make the forum a more pleasant place.
A Mod and/or Elder Mod, will never play a world that they mod on, to prevent bias.
Now if you still have any questions about this then PM/skype me or speak to Jp68plus1
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser7369
Guest
You know he came to me after you posted this right? Idc what he writes here 
He has a point though. The world rules are being made up on an ongoing basis with little attention paid to what the words in them actually mean. For example, a need to clarify that the word internal doesnt mean external (seemed obvious) clarification that tribelock actually meansyou cant leave your tribe unless you quit at which point you can leave, rejoin, leave again and for me the best bit is you can create a new tribe and continue attacking people. Seems pretty similar to any other world really. As long as you say you are quitting you can leave and play on.
Any other points...oh yes no outside support except if it lands after you take a village you can keep it and if it was in the village before you left your tribe (oo thats possible) it can stay. So actually no outside support doesnt mean that you cant have outside support either.
Anyone got any other examples of a rule not meaning what it says?
He has a point though. The world rules are being made up on an ongoing basis with little attention paid to what the words in them actually mean. For example, a need to clarify that the word internal doesnt mean external (seemed obvious) clarification that tribelock actually meansyou cant leave your tribe unless you quit at which point you can leave, rejoin, leave again and for me the best bit is you can create a new tribe and continue attacking people. Seems pretty similar to any other world really. As long as you say you are quitting you can leave and play on.
Any other points...oh yes no outside support except if it lands after you take a village you can keep it and if it was in the village before you left your tribe (oo thats possible) it can stay. So actually no outside support doesnt mean that you cant have outside support either.
Anyone got any other examples of a rule not meaning what it says?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser4479
Guest
Like when was it ever agreed that people could be removed to be internaled? Like the War members tried to say he got removed cause of outsite sitter they new the rules where not right and where being exploited.
DeletedUser
Guest
i read this
then seen this.
no sitter and no player... :icon_confused: i can only wonder how they joined a tribe with a dead account.
:icon_redface: im sorry but this will be my last time on a .uk and if net has gone the same i can see lots of clones
then seen this.
no sitter and no player... :icon_confused: i can only wonder how they joined a tribe with a dead account.
:icon_redface: im sorry but this will be my last time on a .uk and if net has gone the same i can see lots of clones
DeletedUser
Guest
Can someone please explain why this has happened, rather than happy slap each other like 12 year-olds on Red Bull?
DeletedUser
Guest
I agree, i don't play this world(used to for short while, different nick) interested to know why and what has happened to bring this in. And what was option 3 in the poll??
DeletedUser
Guest
Basically, a player called Silent Warrior (SW) who is a member of EvoLTR, sets the duke of W.A.R (EvoLTR's enemy) as he is a noob who isn't suitable for a teamwork based game.
Because of tribelock, EvolTR were unable to boot him so they were forced to hide their forums by making them all trusted. It also made it impossible to use the noble planner as SW (and thus, WARs duke, GIXXER) could see it and be informed of our claims.
GIXXER emptied SW's villages for other WAR members to take while EvolTR simply watched as we cannot attack our own tribemates (world settings prevent such attacks). We thus waited for SW to be nobled by WAR members, and then renoble off them. However, if a village was at risk of being lost to EvoLTR when another WAR member had taken the village off SW, then GIX would use SW to renoble and thus, EvoLTR attacks would visit rather than hit.
This was considered to be an unwanted manipulation and abuse of the sitting rules by the moderators, so they decided that it was against the "spirit of the game" and so, the account was booted by the moderators. In addition, the moderators stated that is now illegal to set an enemy sitter in a tribelocked world; doing so will result in the sat account being kicked.
WAR (mainly GIXXER) naturally, did not like this outcome. EvoLTR, on the other hand considered this to be fair.
Because of tribelock, EvolTR were unable to boot him so they were forced to hide their forums by making them all trusted. It also made it impossible to use the noble planner as SW (and thus, WARs duke, GIXXER) could see it and be informed of our claims.
GIXXER emptied SW's villages for other WAR members to take while EvolTR simply watched as we cannot attack our own tribemates (world settings prevent such attacks). We thus waited for SW to be nobled by WAR members, and then renoble off them. However, if a village was at risk of being lost to EvoLTR when another WAR member had taken the village off SW, then GIX would use SW to renoble and thus, EvoLTR attacks would visit rather than hit.
This was considered to be an unwanted manipulation and abuse of the sitting rules by the moderators, so they decided that it was against the "spirit of the game" and so, the account was booted by the moderators. In addition, the moderators stated that is now illegal to set an enemy sitter in a tribelocked world; doing so will result in the sat account being kicked.
WAR (mainly GIXXER) naturally, did not like this outcome. EvoLTR, on the other hand considered this to be fair.
DeletedUser
Guest
I think WAR rightly feel it is an unfortunate outcome.
3. and this is in relation to UK10 only the tribe lock will be lifted until such time as the first mega village is nobled. 24 hours after the nobling has occured the tribe lock will be reinstated for the rest of the world.
3. and this is in relation to UK10 only the tribe lock will be lifted until such time as the first mega village is nobled. 24 hours after the nobling has occured the tribe lock will be reinstated for the rest of the world.
DeletedUser
Guest
Whilst I agree fairly well with your summary of the event, I can't help but comment on this point. Gixxer received permission every step of the way from in game mods on what he done. How can it be unwarrented and abuse of sitting, if the mods told him it was perfectly legal and acceptable. Even Drew, publicly stated that Gixxer had done nothing wrong, only use the account sit effiecently.
Silent Warrior gifted his account to WAR ( his enemy), and Gixxer received permission to noble it out via sitting, from the mods. The mods considered this being the wishes of the account holder and so accepted it.
As Evol had made no preliminary plans for such an eventuality ( WAR had), they were naturally very angry. I could genuinely see why to be honest, I'd hate if it happened us. However as said, they could have made plans for this, indeed it looked like they had with some of their larger players moving to a secondary tribe, MOO. This tribe could have been used to noble out Silent Warrior. They didnt though.
We all joined this world knowing that it had a tribe lock. Some made plans, which took quite a bit of forethought and time invested, to the "what-if" scenarios. Others did not.
However the mods, decided to change the rules, and stop Silent Warriors last wishes to be fulfilled. They ended the sit and removed Silent Warrior from EVOL - a breach of the original rules.
Then again, yesterday the rules were changed on two occasions in a single day. I really do wonder why these rules were set at the start of this world.
We mailed the mods in game and asked them how, if any way, we might internal two dead accounts. We were informed when we were ready, they would boot said players for us to noble. Every question was meticulously asked and probed by us to the mods. When satisfied we understood all that was allowed, we made plans to internal these accounts.
The player in question was booted earlier in the week, due to a mixup with the mods looking at the time stamp for sitting incorrectly. They quickly shoved him back into our tribe after realising their error.
A lot of time and effort, as well as mailing to mods, to cover our backsides, was performed. We performed a large op on one player in particular, who had a frontline account, and needed to be done swiftly and carefully. Some members spent 2 days launching trains and support. Again I can't re-iterate enough, that each step of our plans was informed and agreed as legal by the in game mods.
So after lots of planned launches, and much effort by all, suddenly the in game mods shove the player back into our tribe. This account now had no troops at home ( all been dodging our own tribes trains), and was surrounded by our enemy. With the settings on this world, many of our tribes trains just visited, leaving only a few villages taken as planned ( taken before he was shoved back in to WAR).
So in effect many of our players wasted a few days timing attacks and support, only for their trains to just visit and return home. The account in question was now completely defenseless and had EVOL nobling empty villages at will. Essentially for adhering to the advice of the mods we were swiftly and harshly punished, as they decided to change their minds on their ruling.
Whilst I understand the mods have a tough job, and the settings on this world are unique, I can't understand the constant rule changing and switching decisions made by them, whilst heavily punishing those players who informed the staff, and received permission from them.
DeletedUser
Guest
Lakadaem both the dukes went on record as saying they wanted to keep tribelock in place. The removal of the 2 accounts shouldnt have happened in the 1st place and you knew that. All the villages lost to war members should really have been returned to the owner and to be really picky all war members taking any of the villages banned as really is against the rules set out. just like if you use an illegal script its in the rules and mods always say you should know the rules so have no excuses. We played by the rules set out why couldnt you? personally I think war are lucky to keep the war villages they nobled. There was even a chance to do a roll back of the server but there was no point asking for opinions on it as 1 side would say yes and the other side would say no and would get us no where.
DeletedUser
Guest
i think the tribelock world is a new for everyone including the mods. I think if their is another tribelock world then the rules will be much clearer.
DeletedUser
Guest
And yet Silent Warrior was removed from EVOL. If what your saying is correct, then he rightly should have been kept in EVOL. He wasn't however, he was removed contrary to the rules.
We did not remove the two players from WAR - that's impossible to do. The in game mods removed them. We asked the mods how we could internal them, they told us they would remove the players when we were ready, and we could noble them then. We proceeded with this plan.
We had other options available, such as getting other tribes to noble them first ( we have friends in other tribes). There was no need to do this, as the mods told us this method, which seemed easier and safer. We went with the mods advice and got punished heftily for it.
Why should we be banned from adhering, to the letter, to the mods instructions. In what dimension is sticking to the rules given, breaking the rules.
I'd be very suprised mate if there is another world with the tribelock feature after the farce that they have made with this one. To think we've paid to get this treatment sickens me. If I wanted to pay to get shafted repeatedly, I would have took a trip to Thailand....at least there who knows, maybe I would have had a smile at the end of it
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I agree silent warrior shouldnt have been removed from evoltr. the sit really should have just been dropped. The mods admitted they got it wrong in the removal of your 2 accounts just like was admitted the removal of silent was wrong. Prob due to not fully understanding the tribelock system. Even if a mod gets the rule wrong its still breaking the rules. people have been pulled up on that before and they still get punished not as hard tho so instead of a 50% loss of villages think they got like a 10-20% loss.
I agree the tribelock concept wont happen again. or if it does will be many moons from now and i dont think anyone who played uk10 will ever join it.
I agree the tribelock concept wont happen again. or if it does will be many moons from now and i dont think anyone who played uk10 will ever join it.
DeletedUser
Guest
Aye it started as an interesting idea, but just doesn't seem to work. There's always going to be tribes and players who feel really hard done by. Well I suppose it was a learning curve for many.
DeletedUser
Guest
The key difference is that you tried to contest the rules. You attempted to question them by asking the mods to boot your own internals despite targetting EvoLTR internals, which we did not boot (by requesting to the mods), because we were told that it would not be possible, due to TRIBELOCK.
Why on earth should we be made to keep our internals (e.g. Acid Blast) who lost 35 villages as the account went inactive and WAR had a field day with them, while WAR get the benefit of nobling 40+ villages off Bazza as an internal. I was totally waiting for Bazza's sit ot be dropped so that I could wipe that sorry player, that's why I didn't bother hitting him hard; it is against tribelock to have your internals booted out for you, otherwise, would WAR be willing to pay compensation in terms of all the villages that they stole off Acid Blast & EvoLTR while the account was inactive and needed internalling?
Be grateful you even got some 40 villages off Bazza, I would've argued that transferring back the villages to Bazza's ownership would be more fair, but I don't think that's possible, so that is that. You deserve what you got for attempting to push the mods into making a genuine mistake on their part which they have attempted to rectify as fairly as possible.
DeletedUser
Guest
I'd be very suprised mate if there is another world with the tribelock feature after the farce that they have made with this one. To think we've paid to get this treatment sickens me. If I wanted to pay to get shafted repeatedly, I would have took a trip to Thailand....at least there who knows, maybe I would have had a smile at the end of it
this made me rotfl :lol:
i do agree, no tribe has done wrong here so not even worth going backwards and forwards with this silent account and your 2....... the settings which are wrong
DeletedUser
Guest
Adellion, your outlook of this, is humourous at best. Your leaving out a pivotal piece of information from your comparison. Acid Blast deleted. He did not set a sitter, or attempt to merge accounts or run hiding from incomings. He deleted. Our player did not delete....one wanted to merge, the other abandoned the account, all of which are three different scenarios.
We didn't ask the mods to boot our internals. It was their advice and suggestion that this is what must be done. We had other options at our disposal to avail of. The mods directions put us down the road we took.
And you were
How very brave of you!
Totally agree mate, just couldn't stomach some of the things being said about how WAR acted.
We didn't ask the mods to boot our internals. It was their advice and suggestion that this is what must be done. We had other options at our disposal to avail of. The mods directions put us down the road we took.
And you were
How very brave of you!
Totally agree mate, just couldn't stomach some of the things being said about how WAR acted.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I meant in regard to Bazza leaving and joining, and GIX's [insert indirect word for you-know-what].
DeletedUser7369
Guest
With regards to the WAR and EvoLTR players posts about where we now find ourselves and how we got here I would say that it is pretty obvious that there is a lot that each side is not aware of.
Firstly, I was completely oblivious to the fact that WAR had been checking with the mods regularly to ensure that they were not breaching any rules. On that basis i would say that they acted properly in that respect and have a right to feel hard done by given the events that then followed. I would hope that they can understand why we at EvoLTR also feel strongly that we have been hard done by.
Taking the Silent Warrior (sorry his names so similar to yours silent) situation. We in EvoLTR initially took the fact that gixxer had the sit with good grace happy in the knowledge that our interpretation of the rules meant that an account owner can only leave the account to be internalled. We defined internal in the same manner as is now documented by Tracey above. i.e. an internal is internal to the tribe. with that in mind we figured we could give gixxer his own forum and have some fun. Unfortunately he was then advised that he could let WAR noble the account. We felt that this was against the rules which prevent damaging a sit account and complained as such.
Now based on the fact WAR had sought approval and been given it i want it clear i DO NOT CONSIDER THEM CHEATS but i felt at the time they were being allowed to breach the rules as were unable to internal the account (it was external to their tribe) and were therefore damaging a sit. I made this point quite strongly and think that the poll issued at that time to clarify things dealt with it sufficiently to ensure both tribes were unhappy which im told is the art of mediation.
I believe that kicking silent warrior was a mistake and he should have been left in evoltr until he barbed out.
With the current issues over bazza WAR again feel hard done by as they had an account they were told they could internal and discussed this with the moderators at all stages. We in evoltr felt hard done by as our inactives chose to hit delete because we had frequently discussed the inability to internal accounts on this world. All of our members took the tribelock to mean no account could leave a tribe for any reason and agreed if a player wasnt willing to give the password out (use on other worlds or whatever reason) then hitting delete would give the best chance for us to take and hold some of their villages.
When we saw that WAR circumnavigated the rule as we understood it we complained and we consider our compaint to be justified. I know full well that WAR had some doubts as to the ability to internal as Clara made the point quite heatedly that they had ensured they had accounts not in WAR to ensure that they could noble internals that way. So the fact they sought advice and got told the wrong thing is neither their fault nor EvoLTR and the decision to return the players in question to war is another that upsets both tribes equally,
EvoLTR believe that the villages baldrix, neile etc took from bazza should be made bazza villages again as he should have been a tribemate and their attacks should have visited.
WAR believe they have been "shafted" and would have acted differently and more prudently with his troops if they thought they would be unable to noble the account
now we get another poll suggesting the no harm rule be lifted. I don't know how anyone else feels but this is a genuine setting i agreed to in full understanding of what it meant and therefore i hope it stays.
Maybe members of both tribes will now have an understanding of why the mods have had such a hard time and why everyone is unhappy about the decisions. They have at all times tried their best and we should remember that some form of moderation is required so as such we do need them and their efforts. We all make mistakes lets forgive them not moan about them too much and maybe accept that everyone being unhappy at the outcome so far is probably a reflection that they are at least unbiased and trying their hardest.
Firstly, I was completely oblivious to the fact that WAR had been checking with the mods regularly to ensure that they were not breaching any rules. On that basis i would say that they acted properly in that respect and have a right to feel hard done by given the events that then followed. I would hope that they can understand why we at EvoLTR also feel strongly that we have been hard done by.
Taking the Silent Warrior (sorry his names so similar to yours silent) situation. We in EvoLTR initially took the fact that gixxer had the sit with good grace happy in the knowledge that our interpretation of the rules meant that an account owner can only leave the account to be internalled. We defined internal in the same manner as is now documented by Tracey above. i.e. an internal is internal to the tribe. with that in mind we figured we could give gixxer his own forum and have some fun. Unfortunately he was then advised that he could let WAR noble the account. We felt that this was against the rules which prevent damaging a sit account and complained as such.
Now based on the fact WAR had sought approval and been given it i want it clear i DO NOT CONSIDER THEM CHEATS but i felt at the time they were being allowed to breach the rules as were unable to internal the account (it was external to their tribe) and were therefore damaging a sit. I made this point quite strongly and think that the poll issued at that time to clarify things dealt with it sufficiently to ensure both tribes were unhappy which im told is the art of mediation.
I believe that kicking silent warrior was a mistake and he should have been left in evoltr until he barbed out.
With the current issues over bazza WAR again feel hard done by as they had an account they were told they could internal and discussed this with the moderators at all stages. We in evoltr felt hard done by as our inactives chose to hit delete because we had frequently discussed the inability to internal accounts on this world. All of our members took the tribelock to mean no account could leave a tribe for any reason and agreed if a player wasnt willing to give the password out (use on other worlds or whatever reason) then hitting delete would give the best chance for us to take and hold some of their villages.
When we saw that WAR circumnavigated the rule as we understood it we complained and we consider our compaint to be justified. I know full well that WAR had some doubts as to the ability to internal as Clara made the point quite heatedly that they had ensured they had accounts not in WAR to ensure that they could noble internals that way. So the fact they sought advice and got told the wrong thing is neither their fault nor EvoLTR and the decision to return the players in question to war is another that upsets both tribes equally,
EvoLTR believe that the villages baldrix, neile etc took from bazza should be made bazza villages again as he should have been a tribemate and their attacks should have visited.
WAR believe they have been "shafted" and would have acted differently and more prudently with his troops if they thought they would be unable to noble the account
now we get another poll suggesting the no harm rule be lifted. I don't know how anyone else feels but this is a genuine setting i agreed to in full understanding of what it meant and therefore i hope it stays.
Maybe members of both tribes will now have an understanding of why the mods have had such a hard time and why everyone is unhappy about the decisions. They have at all times tried their best and we should remember that some form of moderation is required so as such we do need them and their efforts. We all make mistakes lets forgive them not moan about them too much and maybe accept that everyone being unhappy at the outcome so far is probably a reflection that they are at least unbiased and trying their hardest.
Last edited by a moderator:
