unannounced rule change shock!

[DeletedUser7369]

I am posting this as a discussion thread on the following point

This morning i finally took the time to read the rules on sitting for internal nobling and when i made my interpretation of them known and identified a breach they were reworded and retrospectively applied to ensure that the offending players escape punishment

The rule in question is as follows.

(2) Addendum for accounts where owners have quit or left the game:
Players, who quit the game and leave their account to the tribe for internal nobling, must send in a support ticket notifying the Ingame Staff

i interpreted the key words in this to be

THE TRIBE - meaning the players tribe at the point of leaving or any other tribe that the account moves to.

INTERNAL NOBLING - meaning nobling by players IN the same tribe.

Now i am treading a thin line here so will not be specific as to who or how i think this rule was breached however the rule now reads

(2) Addendum for accounts where owners have quit or left the game:
Players, who quit the game and give their account over for nobling, must send in a support ticket notifying the Ingame Staff

which of course has a completely different interpretation.

Any thoughts on this?

My thoughts are the new rule is fine but is completely different and should not prevent the previous rule being applied.

 

[DeletedUser]

There are sometimes situations, where a player from one tribe quits, passes his sit to a player in a different tribe, for them to internal the account. The rule covers that eventuality, as well as being internalled by his own tribe.

This is my personal interpretation and opinion, not that of TW or innogames.

 

[DeletedUser7369]

There are sometimes situations, where a player from one tribe quits, passes his sit to a player in a different tribe, for them to internal the account. The rule covers that eventuality, as well as being internalled by his own tribe.

This is my personal interpretation and opinion, not that of TW or innogames.

the new rule does. i agree. the initial rule doesnt as it stipulates THE TRIBE and INTERNAL. on a tribelock world it is extremely important that these rules remain the same for the duration and are interpreted as written as we have committed to a world with the rules as they stood.

To change the rules so fundamentally and not notify every player is an oversight I think should be rectified and the old rules applied upto the date of the change

 

[DeletedUser10544]

In my opinion they have changed the rules as a knee jerk reaction to the current situation, without thinking through why the original rule stated tribe and internal.
I have played on both the UK and .net servers and it is the traitorous activities of a few players that can spoil the game for other people. Enough for whole tribes to hit the delete key and give up playing TW completely. This rule change facilitates this, especially on a world where it is not possible to dismiss a tribe member.
People do not like paying money to be stabbed in the back.
Finally, this is "Tribal" wars. If you wish to donate your villages to someone else then make sure that you are in the same tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

The way i read it the person who leaves the game does not have to leave his villages to the tribe but if he does he needs to put in a support ticket expressing his wishes.

 

[DeletedUser7369]

The way i read it the person who leaves the game does not have to leave his villages to the tribe but if he does he needs to put in a support ticket expressing his wishes.

the tribe being their tribe right? as opposed to A tribe which would allow any tribe.

 

[DeletedUser4270]

From looking at both sides I would say..

1. Tribal Wars team needs to make a rule that covers all eventualities. ie. if a person does not want to be internalled by their own tribe, they must still inform TW of their intention to give their villages to someone. If in cases where a member is taken willingly, but without express consent, by the enemy, it could become confusing. It is better for these things do be done WITH the express written permission of the account owner, rather than to have any doubts surrounding it. Wether it is an internalling by a members own tribe, or gifting of villages to another tribe or member.

2. The opposite side.. that this change in rule, does seem to be encouraging disshonourable gameplay, it is allowing members to give up their accounts to a tribe who has not supported them, and basically to weaken the very tribe who has worked alongside them and helped them, in some cases, for many months or even years. This type of tratiorous behaviour, is obviously not against the rules of TW, but none of us would like to see it encouraged.


My personal opinion, is that in W10, we have a situation where people are supposed to be locked into one tribe, the reasoning behind this, to stop abuse regarding the mega barbs. If we are to have a tribelock for these purposes on W10 then it is ridiculous to have a rule on W10 where a member can gift their account to a different tribe. What if that person is in posession of one of the mega barb villages? Surely they should not then be allowed to quit and gift it to a different tribe as this clearly goes against the spirit and intentions of the tribe lock itself.

 

[DeletedUser7369]

From looking at both sides I would say..

1. Tribal Wars team needs to make a rule that covers all eventualities. ie. if a person does not want to be internalled by their own tribe, they must still inform TW of their intention to give their villages to someone. If in cases where a member is taken willingly, but without express consent, by the enemy, it could become confusing. It is better for these things do be done WITH the express written permission of the account owner, rather than to have any doubts surrounding it. Wether it is an internalling by a members own tribe, or gifting of villages to another tribe or member.

2. The opposite side.. that this change in rule, does seem to be encouraging disshonourable gameplay, it is allowing members to give up their accounts to a tribe who has not supported them, and basically to weaken the very tribe who has worked alongside them and helped them, in some cases, for many months or even years. This type of tratiorous behaviour, is obviously not against the rules of TW, but none of us would like to see it encouraged.


My personal opinion, is that in W10, we have a situation where people are supposed to be locked into one tribe, the reasoning behind this, to stop abuse regarding the mega barbs. If we are to have a tribelock for these purposes on W10 then it is ridiculous to have a rule on W10 where a member can gift their account to a different tribe. What if that person is in posession of one of the mega barb villages? Surely they should not then be allowed to quit and gift it to a different tribe as this clearly goes against the spirit and intentions of the tribe lock itself.

What a well made point and i note that you consider it a rule change enabling traitorous behaviour. interesting when that indicates that the rule has changed from one that didn't allow it.

 

[DeletedUser2918]

From looking at both sides I would say..
2. The opposite side.. that this change in rule, does seem to be encouraging disshonourable gameplay, it is allowing members to give up their accounts to a tribe who has not supported them, and basically to weaken the very tribe who has worked alongside them and helped them, in some cases, for many months or even years. This type of tratiorous behaviour, is obviously not against the rules of TW, but none of us would like to see it encouraged.
.

apologies - i know this is not my world but thought id have an opinion anyway. And shalah - only quoting u as you've put an opinion nice and succinctly and i wanted to give a counter argument to the main ones at the moment.

My only point is this - the account is mine. I paid pp for it. I peed off family and loved ones by playing this instead of spending time with them. It is mine to do with as i will. Although this is tribal wars the account is not the tribes unless i give it to the tribe. If i left then i could give it to whom ever i want.

now i understand this presents some specific issues on this world with a tribe lock etc. But in that case surely it is up to a tribes leadership to manage (e.g. during the recruitment process, catching up with people on a regular basis, ensuring all accounts working for the tribe etc etc - its all these 'extras' that distinguish the average leader from the great). End of the day, whatever the world, one thing has always been true - know who you play with :icon_wink:

 

[DeletedUser7369]

apologies - i know this is not my world but thought id have an opinion anyway. And shalah - only quoting u as you've put an opinion nice and succinctly and i wanted to give a counter argument to the main ones at the moment.

My only point is this - the account is mine. I paid pp for it. I peed off family and loved ones by playing this instead of spending time with them. It is mine to do with as i will. Although this is tribal wars the account is not the tribes unless i give it to the tribe. If i left then i could give it to whom ever i want.

now i understand this presents some specific issues on this world with a tribe lock etc. But in that case surely it is up to a tribes leadership to manage (e.g. during the recruitment process, catching up with people on a regular basis, ensuring all accounts working for the tribe etc etc - its all these 'extras' that distinguish the average leader from the great). End of the day, whatever the world, one thing has always been true - know who you play with :icon_wink:

I actually agree with you to a degree.....if you feel strongly enough to manage the disposal of your villages to the enemy i would have no problem. Setting them to do it is a breach of the rules as they stood prior to the rewording as they are not internal and therefore the nobling damages the account which is a breach of the sitting rule.

 

[DeletedUser]

(2) Addendum for accounts where owners have quit or left the game:
Players, who quit the game and leave their account to the tribe for internal nobling, must send in a support ticket notifying the Ingame Staff

i interpreted the key words in this to be

THE TRIBE - meaning the players tribe at the point of leaving or any other tribe that the account moves to.

INTERNAL NOBLING - meaning nobling by players IN the same tribe.

Now i am treading a thin line here so will not be specific as to who or how i think this rule was breached however the rule now reads

(2) Addendum for accounts where owners have quit or left the game:
Players, who quit the game and give their account over for nobling, must send in a support ticket notifying the Ingame Staff

which of course has a completely different interpretation.

Any thoughts on this?

My thoughts are the new rule is fine but is completely different and should not prevent the previous rule being applied.

I would interpret this rule the same as the OP. Internal suggests that your villages can be nobled by your tribemates, if you want to leave them to a different tribe, you would have to leave and join that tribe to be internalled by them. Obviously due to the tribe lock, you cannot leave and re-join a new tribe, which means surely any accounts that quit should have their villages nobled by their tribe mates, no? I thought the whole point of tribe LOCK was to keep the players in the same tribes... Therefore if they wish their villages to not be in that tribe they should hit the delete button.

 

[DeletedUser6695]

Is the issue raised simply because of w10s tribe lock?

The rule change seems beneficial overall in my eyes.

 

[DeletedUser]

I believe the original rule, of 'tribe', and 'internalling', would cover an account being sat by a different tribe, if the member has put in a ticket, giving permission for that specific tribe to noble the account out. But I'm not an ingame mod, and cannot say how they interpret it.

Again, just my personal views, not those of TW or Innogames.

 

[DeletedUser7369]

Is the issue raised simply because of w10s tribe lock?

The rule change seems beneficial overall in my eyes.

the rule change is completely beneficial in every respect as it is now written to regulate gameplay as it was apparently intended. my contention is that the previous rule was significantly different and only allowed internalling. This is no issue on most worlds as you can switch tribes to the one you wish to noble you. however tribelock prevents this and internalling (if applying a standard definition of the phrase internal) must be by tribemates otherwise it is externalling which is not something provided for in the rules as allowable and therefore would fall under "damaging a sat account" which is illegal.

I believe the original rule, of 'tribe', and 'internalling', would cover an account being sat by a different tribe, if the member has put in a ticket, giving permission for that specific tribe to noble the account out. But I'm not an ingame mod, and cannot say how they interpret it.

Again, just my personal views, not those of TW or Innogames.

I am interested what part of the act you consider meets the requirement "internal" if its not the same tribe....

 

[DeletedUser]

There are sometimes situations, where a player from one tribe quits, passes his sit to a player in a different tribe, for them to internal the account. The rule covers that eventuality, as well as being internalled by his own tribe.

This is my personal interpretation and opinion, not that of TW or innogames.

This rule should not apply on a world which has a tribelock feature, otherwise it encourages deceit and spying which is dishonourable and cannot be eliminated (as duke cannot boot people from tribelock).

 

[DeletedUser9006]

No real benefit arguing with the Staff of TW, seeing as they're too idiotic to understand.


Changing your rules thismorning, does not counteract the offence which was made earlier in game.
It just proves that the TW team are too incompetent to do anything about the aforementioned rules being broken, so resort to editing them and acting as though everything is alright.

No rules were changed. The rules were exactly the same before and after the clarification.

If you wanted to nit pick you could say on your understanding of the rules this morning NO permission was required prior to the clarification for sitters wanting to dish out villages of the account they are sitting that is not in the same tribe ( as long as they were acting in the owners interest)

It is not breaking the rules to sit an account of someone who has quit, out of your tribe and act according to their wishes. No-where in the rules does it say this is not allowed. Today it was clarified that whether in or out of the same tribe all need to show proof and inform support, not that previously it was disallowed and now it is. That is not the case at all. It was never a breach of rules.

Ade, that is part and parcel of tribelock , trying to ensure you know and trust every member before the lock is enforced. Yes it sux when it's your tribe who is betrayed but these things happen and when tribe lock is enforced these are the thing one has to attempt to avoid through knowing your tribe very well.

<3

 

[GIXXER]

wa wa!

(2) Addendum for accounts where owners have quit or left the game:
Players, who quit the game and leave their account to the tribe for internal nobling, must send in a support ticket notifying the Ingame Staff

how more clearer could that be? he didnt leave it to your tribe. simples. he was the owner, his choice. i see no rule stating, that a quit account must be internalled by the tribe. Do you?

Good job W.A.R are well within the rules regarding the silent warrior sit. Ticket was presented well in advance, and permission duly granted. Simply ignoring the replies from your own IG tickets, and disrespecting TW staff further by bringing it on the external forums shows your own lack of respect, and ignorance regarding the rules and decisions of TW staff.

 

[DeletedUser7369]

wa wa!

(2) Addendum for accounts where owners have quit or left the game:
Players, who quit the game and leave their account to the tribe for internal nobling, must send in a support ticket notifying the Ingame Staff

how more clearer could that be? he didnt leave it to your tribe. simples. he was the owner, his choice. i see no rule stating, that a quit account must be internalled by the tribe. Do you?

Good job W.A.R are well within the rules regarding the silent warrior sit. Ticket was presented well in advance, and permission duly granted. Simply ignoring the replies from your own IG tickets, and disrespecting TW staff further by bringing it on the external forums shows your own lack of respect, and ignorance regarding the rules and decisions of TW staff.

haha. I think you have nailed the point im making you complete noob. come on follow the thought process through to its conclusion...as i have talked to you and know you will take some time getting there i will draw you a map.....

Silent quit... fair enough and good riddance....you got the sit....unethical immoral but completely within the rules as they stood. So far so good.

I also agree that a quit account doesn't have to be internalled by his tribe. However my contention is that for the term internalled to apply any gifting of the villages MUST be to the players tribe. Otherwise it is not an INTERNAL. Now I am quite satisfied that there is no need for the account to be internalled. you can sit it until the end of the world for all i care however you arent just sitting it. you are allowing war members to noble from it. this is therefore damaging the account. which is a breach of the rules. A sitter must not damage the account in anyway. Nowhere in the rules does it make special exemption for where the account owner may want it to happen. nowhere does it say oh but its ok if the player doesnt mind. The rules were unequivocal a sit can be internalled with the account owners permission (not possible on this world due to the settings as tribemates just visit) or must be played by the sitter to improve the account.

If silent warrior is that keen to see the account rimmed by war and you get all the villages then I am afraid it is clear that the rules require the account to be under his control at the time.

Your actions in letting war noble villages, whilst in accordance with the account owners wishes, are a breach of the rules. Petty, but then again so is taking a sit in another tribe which is something i have avoided doing so far.....

Oh, and as for bringing it to the forum. I brought it here because it amazed me that, having seen my argument about it being a breach, they felt the need to reword the rules and then failed to announce this to the world as a whole. I know they didnt announce it as when i was directed to the announcements page by a respected moderator (yes there are many mods i consider not just competent but helpful, intelligent and honest) I had a good chuckle that the *updated* wording was still the old wording which i consider you to have breached.

The ticket is actually still open and under discussion and i can't detail anything here without breaching the rules. Therefore i simply hoped to provoke discussion about the rule change, and the application of the rule as it had stood to all actions up to that point.

 

[DeletedUser]

A ticket was put in, allowing the sitters tribe to noble the account out. It is an 'internal', because the tribe sitting the account, are the tribe nobling it out. No breach of the rules have taken place.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ade, that is part and parcel of tribelock , trying to ensure you know and trust every member before the lock is enforced. Yes it sux when it's your tribe who is betrayed but these things happen and when tribe lock is enforced these are the thing one has to attempt to avoid through knowing your tribe very well.
<3

No Lisa, this makes a mockery of the world settings. It brings shame upon UK10 and causes this world to die prematurely, as remember, if the actions of the moderators serve to push people away from the world, it will become a defunct and dead world, a fact which the moderators and INNOGAMES repeatedly fail to realise. They will kill this world with their stonewalling tactics and responses.

We all know GIXXER is dishonourable, and additional safeguards SHOULD have been put in place by INNOGAMES to prevent abuse of the tribelock feature.
I am quite the opposite, I am fair and honourable, because I do not fear a level playing field; I enjoy it. GIXXER is a petty player and a coward, and I'm sure people like Nauzhror will be the first to state his nature. GIXXER will defend what is wrong if it benefits him, I will not do so, as I have honour.

Right now, I have ordered my tribe to go back to using a forum for noble claims, because our noble planner feature is compromised.
Is it fair that one member should prevent an entire tribe of 30+ members using their OWN internal noble planner feature? What's the point of INNOGAMES new features if they are made useless because of worlds settings that INNOGAMES has failed to consider the full implications of? This is a disgrace, and your response is an equal disgrace I don't know why you bothered. The mods have lied about changing the rules, as I checked the rules yesterday and the word "INTERNAL" was clearly written in the rules, it has been removed today.

"(2) Addendum for accounts where owners have quit or left the game:
Players, who quit the game and give their account over for INTERNAL nobling"

If a moderator lies to us, why on earth should anyone trust the mods? The mods deleted that purely to try and back up their travesty of an argument, because they know they are in the wrong.

An internal is an account that has quit and is being eaten by his OWN tribe or any other players outside that have the tribal aristocracy's permission.
This definition is cast iron and set in stone. To question it is futile and against the opinions of the majority of TW players. The moderators opinions are not sufficiently numbered enough to counter the majority of TW playing players, therefore it is the moderators that are in the wrong about their opinion, and must change their opinion to match those of the playing TW majority. The strength of numbers holds true. You will find dishonourable people like GIXXER will shout out to defend himself, but if the situatio was reversed, he'd be the one posting this. Though, EvoLTR would not stoop so low as to resort to such underhand and illegal tactics.

The moderators and GIXXER do not have a leg to stand on, and I know full well from sources that even some of the moderators themselves agree that the tribelock was poorly planned, and it's been under great consideration by the in-game mods.

I want to reiterate that I believe that the rules were changed without informing anybody in order to justify the moderators in a case against a player who has clearly and undeniably broken the rules. We are not pressing for anyone to get banned over it, we simply want such illegal actions to stop immediately, so that we can get back to a fair fight.

A ticket was put in, allowing the sitters tribe to noble the account out. It is an 'internal', because the tribe sitting the account, are the tribe nobling it out. No breach of the rules have taken place.

That is an incorrect definition of an internal. An internal is only an internal if the account that has quit is nobled by members of its OWN tribe. Your definition is therefore incorrect. I suggest you drop your definition as a result.