Discussion regarding rule change

[DeletedUser]

Can I ask what support will do when the sensible duke just kicks the player out of the tribe and carries on regardless?

Lots of dukes keep them in the tribe so they can gobble up the villages before other players around the inactive figure out they can get free villages.


My take on the rule is so that tribes can't hold accounts that are being sat the whole time just for the specific purpose of suiciding all of the troops on a player. You could say that that is actually purposely damaging a sat account, which is also against the rules.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, using troops (and rebuilding them) in an intelligent way that would benefit the account owner should they return is fine, but once internal nobling has began the troops can be dodged but they can't be used to attack.

Contradictory statements yet again.

LOOP HOLE 1)
If an account is been sat and internalled, his troops are allowed to be used to attack enemies if they strike him first. Gifting or not, it is a retaliation strike, not a pre-emptive which would be leagal by all other means.
Technically not a loop hole since Thar just said it is ok.

[th]
[*]It's just forbidden to attack active accounts - unless they attack the sat account first (see last rule change) or the original owner clearly stated (ingame provable!) that he wants his troops being used to attack a specific target.
[/th]

ALSO
When the new account sit rules came out clarifications were asked of the mods.

Request: Sat Dead accounts
xxxxx
2010-08-27 23:27:57
Can you use the nukes of a dead sat account or does this breach the rules ?

archizlv
2010-08-27 23:56:08
Hello xxxxx,

what do you mean by dead account?

Best Regards,

Pavlina/archizlv
In Game Moderator

xxxxx
2010-08-28 00:08:51
I mean when the player has left the game and given the sit to their tribe for internal nobling.

archizlv
2010-08-28 09:55:45
You can use his troops but you cannot rebuild any.

Best Regards,

Pavlina/archizlv
In Game Moderator

As you can see, changes were made to the account sit rules less then a fortnight ago, and the In Game mods, stated that it was perfectly fine and acceptable to attack and use troops, provided they were not rebuilt. Which goes against what Nauhror just stated.

LOOP HOLE 2)

Yes, using troops (and rebuilding them) in an intelligent way that would benefit the account owner should they return is fine.

If the account owner leaves a mail saying they wil return, it is in the account's best interest to build and use troops to keep his/her account alive. Now, the account begins to reach the realms of the troops been non-useable due to account sit duration. The duke/sitter decide they will begin nobling, however, they still hope and beileve the owner will retun.
Even if internalling has begun, as the last word you head from the player is they will return, thus making attacks leagal.

[rant]
You realise this rule is more trouble then its worth. People on this server are too damn touchy and have no doubt been complaining about been attacked/nobled by gifting/internal accounts.

If I am sitting an account which is gifting and an enemy takes a village, I WILL be launching retaliation strikes and retaking that village if possible.
If we cannot attack enemies with an account, enemies should not be allowed to attack that account. If they are, you are hearby introducing double standards. The rules were fine as they were, "Allowed to attack and use troops, but not rebuild" This was fair and just. The troops that were built by the owner were there to be used against enemies, mail or not, that is their purpose and we should be allowed to give them that purpose.
[/rant]

 

[DeletedUser]

Not entirely sure the rant was required noob it has to be said. Seeing as support will never get complaints about this what does it matter. If your internally nobling an account they're not coming back, so presumably launch the troops, give it a week, then internal the account and everythings okikoke as only the dead account owner can complain..

 

[Nauzhror]

Please add following - noone is aloud to attack the member while being internally nobled. something like beginners protection. Think that would be fare. Otherwise it does not make any sense. Still the account needs to be played.

Not a chance. Firstly internally nobling is attacking, and secondly you should never have a 100% assurance that when internally nobling that someone in another tribe won't notice the conquers and grab some for themselves.

 

[DeletedUser]

What I would like clarified, is what period of time elapsing, would be considered as adequate to decide that a sat account is indeed ok to internally noble? I have had a case where a member passed me a sit, saying he was going on holiday for two weeks, and six weeks later had not returned. At what point can we make the decision to internal such an account, without fear of breaking rules and being banned?

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh dear

Ok perhaps you guys need to get the rule clarified yourselves before you push it onto us.....

[th]Ok, here are some clarifications:

• A sitter only was allowed to suicide troops in the past as long as he has a proof (like a support ticket or mail from the sat account, whilst the owner was playing it [timestamp will prove it]). That's nothing new, that didn't change.

[/th]

Ok simple, if I have a mail from the player before he left stating I can suicide troops before he passes sit I can attack (suicide) troops.

Oh wait.....

So if a tribe has a mail from the owner of the account saying 'do as you wish with the troops and internal me', does that mean that the person who he sends that account sit to can kill the troops off and tribe internal the village?

No. It means that the sitter may allow the player's villages to be internally nobled, but the rule still remains that the account's troops may not be suicided beforehand.

Conflicting information here or what...........

Could someone actually clarify in what situation troops can actually be used then? Because it would appear even the admins havent got the same view.

Personally I aint fussed, rules change all the time so we'll just adapt, but it would be nice to actually fully understand the rule so as not to get risk getting warned etc

 

[DeletedUser5528]

This is starting to get a bit chaotic. These rules need to be clarified properly. I have asked questions to be given one answer. Then someone asked the same thing and was given a totally different answer by the same mod. It also seems to depend which mod you speak to as to what answer you might get.

The mods have the power to ban players for breaching the rules yet dont seem to fully understand them theirselves. (More training required maybe?)

Its only right if you are an enforcer of the rules that you understand them. If mods dont understand them how are we meant to ?

 

[DeletedUser7687]

What is meant by "suicide" when referring to troops.

If there is a tribe wide attack on an player or another tribe and an account which is being sat has a nuke or two can that account take part in the tribe's (or section of tribe) attack as part of a group.

I would not call this suicide - it is part of a co-ordinated attack to achieve an objective.

Obviously the sitter would not be able to take part int he attacks.

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]We're working on rewording the whole sitting rules at the moment. And they will be announced here for discussion first before getting implemented. Until then: Just don't attack with a sat account, unless you were told by the owner to do so or in retaliation after it got attacked. That's basically all.[/th]

 

[DeletedUser7687]

So what you are really saying is that you just messed up and rather than recind the rule you brought in yesterday - which is the sensible thing to do - you are leaving a mish mash of unclear and unworkable bits and pieces, for an unspecified amount of time until you can think of a way of getting yourselves out of the mess you have created.

In the mean time nothing is clear and different mods will take a different view on different situations. Unless there is clarity and certainty then the rules just do not work and are not fair. It should be removed until you know what you want and the rules are unambiguous.

Be brave - accept you messed up, remove yesterdays rule, apologise and then when you have something workable post it here for discussion.

 

[DeletedUser]

To be honest this is not a new concept, however it has always been deemed the responsibility of the account holder to obtain a sitter that they can trust.

However additionally account abuse has always been frowned upon, and rules have always existed against it in its various forms. The rule that has been imposed makes no difference really, if you are internalling an account it is basic tactics to hide the fact as long as possible therefore using the troops to attack an enemy can be counter productive. This does not stop the account being taken just stick it's troops in a barb, or in tribemates villages they will die anyway once the vilages are taken.

I really do not understand what the fuss is about here other than what appears to be a growing culture of let's bash innogames.

Takea step back guys this rule has little or no impact

 

[DeletedUser]

[th]We're working on rewording the whole sitting rules at the moment. And they will be announced here for discussion first before getting implemented. Until then: Just don't attack with a sat account, unless you were told by the owner to do so or in retaliation after it got attacked. That's basically all.[/th]

An internal should be defined as when a SAT account (that has been sat for 48+ hours in a row) loses its first village to another player in their tribe, or in an allied tribe.

I believe internals should reserve the power to renoble their own villages off another player (e.g. an enemy) as that is defending the account. However, they may not conquer *new* villages after internalling has begun. They may not directly attack anyone once internalling has begun.

Until the first internal ennoblement by another tribemember (or ally) the account is not considered an internal.

An account can "suicide" troops if the account is not defined as an internal according to the definition I posted above. (e.g. if its sat but hasn't started to be internalled, then it can legitimately attack). After internalling has begun, it cannot suicide troops, or attack any player (including their own tribe) or barbarians (EXCEPTION : unless to attempt a renoble against a player taking the internal's villages) .

Any thoughts/criticisms/loopholes of the above? ^

 

[DeletedUser]

Perhaps make it illegal for internals to conquer new villages.

An internal should be defined as when it loses his first village to another player in their tribe, or in an allied tribe.

I believe internals should reserve the power to renoble their own villages off another player (e.g. an enemy) as that is defending the account. However, they may not conquer *new* villages after internalling has begun.

Until the first internal ennoblement by another tribemember (or ally) the account is not considered an internal.

Any thoughts/criticisms of the above? ^

Unworkable really. Often players will gift vils to other players, to allow them to relocate. If what you suggest is done, the account donating the village will then be prevented from taking any more vils, thereby preventing the account from growing.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well I still do not think that this rule has any massive impact

 

[DeletedUser]

Unworkable really. Often players will gift vils to other players, to allow them to relocate. If what you suggest is done, the account donating the village will then be prevented from taking any more vils, thereby preventing the account from growing.

Yes, but that rule affects only accounts that are being *sat*. It won't apply to accounts that are not being sat? I've editted my post, what do you think now?

And gifting villages to relocate isn't the most common practice.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, but that rule affects only accounts that are being *sat*. It won't apply to accounts that are not being sat? I've editted my post, what do you think now?

And gifting villages to relocate isn't the most common practice.

It does happen more often than you'd think. Your idea won't work in my opinion.

To be honest, the only thing I want clarification on, is what amount of passage of time on a sat account, would be deemed reasonable to make the decision to internal the account, without banns being handed out.

 

[DeletedUser]

It does happen more often than you'd think. Your idea won't work in my opinion.

To be honest, the only thing I want clarification on, is what amount of passage of time on a sat account, would be deemed reasonable to make the decision to internal the account, without banns being handed out.

Please explain why this idea wouldn't work so that I can modify my idea so that it takes logical criticisms into account. Just saying "It won't work." doesn't help matters. Please give reasons. Ty.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have on occasion gifted villages to another player, in a frontline area. In order to make sure the stack remained until the last possible moment, an account sitter was needed to send home support and dodge troops out. Whilst I agree that this is an unusual situation, it does happen, and the rule as you suggest it, would put the sitter at risk of being banned, and would prevent me from taking further villages. This does happen, I've seen other tribes do exactly the same thing.

We all know suiciding troops is illegal. Your suggestion in my opinion, takes away a facility that helps tribemates, and hinders tribe expansion potentially.
The problem really lies in how the rules are interpretted by those who enforce them, and has already been seen in this thread, that varies greatly.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have on occasion gifted villages to another player, in a frontline area. In order to make sure the stack remained until the last possible moment, an account sitter was needed to send home support and dodge troops out. Whilst I agree that this is an unusual situation, it does happen, and the rule as you suggest it, would put the sitter at risk of being banned, and would prevent me from taking further villages. This does happen, I've seen other tribes do exactly the same thing.

We all know suiciding troops is illegal. Your suggestion in my opinion, takes away a facility that helps tribemates, and hinders tribe expansion potentially.
The problem really lies in how the rules are interpretted by those who enforce them, and has already been seen in this thread, that varies greatly.

If we were to implement the rule so that you would have to be sitting the account for 48 hours or above before you can be banned, do you think that would solve the issue? I'm sure not logging in for more than 48 hours is "yellow inactive" anyway. The moderators can grant exceptions where mails have been provided to show that the account owner is on holiday etc or is in the military etc... perhaps that might work?

Thoughts?

As it stands :

Perhaps make it illegal for internals to conquer new villages.

An internal should be defined as when a SAT account (that has been sat for 48+ hours in a row) loses its first village to another player in their tribe, or in an allied tribe.

I believe internals should reserve the power to renoble their own villages off another player (e.g. an enemy) as that is defending the account. However, they may not conquer *new* villages after internalling has begun. They may not directly attack anyone once internalling has begun.

Until the first internal ennoblement by another tribemember (or ally) the account is not considered an internal.

An account can "suicide" troops if the account is not defined as an internal according to the definition I posted above. (e.g. if its sat but hasn't started to be internalled, then it can legitimately attack). After internalling has begun, it cannot suicide troops, or attack any player (including their own tribe) or barbarians (EXCEPTION : unless to attempt a renoble against a player taking the internal's villages) .

Any thoughts/criticisms/loopholes of the above? ^

^^ Any further criticisms?

 

[DeletedUser6599]

Well I still do not think that this rule has any massive impact

I agree. If someone has said you can use there troops on the enemy to kill them off and then noble is villages then why not? They have given you permission and you aren't abusing there account.