Grey Area in the Rules?

[DeletedUser6695]

Accounts that have been given over for internal nobling are not allowed to continue taking other villages, only exception to this rule is to recapture a village taken by enemy players.

Okay so...here's my issue with this. What does "given over" mean?

I would take this as the player has departed the world and left his/her account to the tribe to divide up villages.

Again, I would take this rule to mean if the departing player remained to oversee the "internal" then they are still in ownership of their account and could(should) be allowed to do as they wish on their OWN account i.e. nuke and noble.


Thoughts?

 

[DeletedUser14623]

I mean the rules have always been extremely grey.

Example:

1. Operating a push account is forbidden. Pushing is considered as one account only existing to advance another account on the same world. All resources and/or troops for example are created predominantly to benefit another account

However, you are allowed to start 5 different players on 5 separate accounts and then merge them together and all play on the same account. Such as what happened in that classic world I played where 50 accounts were made and they merged into 5 accounts.



So the rules were technically not broken, despite the fact that in reality the accounts were made with all resources being created predominantly to benefit another account. Which says to me they are broken, but they got away with it.

Grey rules - check.


Anyway, for my own moaning now. We had a vote on Classic to enable farming. It passed with 29/40 voting yes. He didn't implement it and that's why I don't even log in to Classic despite the fact I was nearly 2x rank 2 when I last logged.


Think you need to accept the game is dead and the management don't care CF.




.... Let's see if I get infracted or this post removed for stating facts. I don't think I'm breaking any rules here. Either way, this game is run like North Korea. Any guesses why it's dead?

 

[DeletedUser4753]

Okay so...here's my issue with this. What does "given over" mean?

I would take this as the player has departed the world and left his/her account to the tribe to divide up villages.

Again, I would take this rule to mean if the departing player remained to oversee the "internal" then they are still in ownership of their account and could(should) be allowed to do as they wish on their OWN account i.e. nuke and noble.


Thoughts?

Precisely this, i interpret it to mean when the account is no longer being driven by its owner, so if a account is being sat with the intentions to be internalled, then it shouldn't be taking additional village.
If the owner of the account intends to leave and let a tribe noble his vills and remains the driver, they can play how they wish, noble vills partake in opps and ceed vills to whomever they wish.

thier are no rules against a account owner taking vills nor gifting them on his account.

n totally agree will, never been a fan of merges later in game, like if you wanna get a mate to co you n help out fine, but merges suck from all sides involved, early game merges though are plain cheating, if peeps never intended to play the world to the end on their account, then its a push account surely.

Either way, this game is run like North Korea. Any guesses why it's dead?

dab n kim have the same haircut?

 

[DeletedUser920]

"early game merges though are plain cheating, if peeps never intended to play the world to the end on their account, then its a push account surely."
That's a bit harsh. Lots of people seem to enjoy start up and then don't really want to spend the time and so ask someone else to noble them rather than quitting or going barb. If their tribe helped them build up, that's okay I think. What's more annoying, but just as understandable is when you take some newbies and teach them to play so they're doing well in the game - or better than ever before - and they suddenly realise their life is being taken over and don't want that (escape !). Then they have to do something with the villages.
Setting up to co-play from the beginning though - is that what you meant ?

 

[DeletedUser4753]

Nothing wrong with playing a account to enjoy start up
nothing wrong with quitting cuz your bored and in the event of such giving peeps your vills
it not cool when thats premeditated or when said quiter then just joins the account that was a beneficiary of the quit, cuz that surely makes the account in question a push account, which are illegal

 

[dabookman]

I see no grey anywhere. accounts given over, it is irrelevant whether the owner remains to gift or passes to a sitter. No account that has been passed for internalling can continue to noble any other village whether that's owned or barbarian. Exceptions are to recap villages lost to enemy action