hirr politics

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

I would say the fact you need a "sufficient reason" would suggest that intent can very much be under consideration when the MH is looking for a justification to let the attack stand or be struck out.

"but unless sufficient reason is given". This very much sounds like that the burden of proof lies on the attackers to prove that their attack wasn't intended to be a suicide. Given that they knew they were dying eta 4 and landed anyways I can't see how this can be the case.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

"but unless sufficient reason is given". This very much sounds like that the burden of proof lies on the attackers to prove that their attack wasn't intended to be a suicide. Given that they knew they were dying eta 4 and landed anyways I can't see how this can be the case.

Well the rule talks about "the time of launch" rather than ETA 4 but that's by the by.

Reading the rule as a whole, "suicide" is put under the category of Farming, which suggests that it's there to cater for a deliberate attempt to increase the defender's score. The sufficient reason is that they weren't deliberately trying to increase eksero's score and there's no reason to suggest that hirr are being particularly dishonest about it.

I'm more than happy to debate semantics and different methods of interpreting laws if you want. This situation is quite unfortunate, but not against the rules from what I can see. The real problem of the rule is that it is highly subjective and needs to be more specific as to what it caters for.

[Tommy]

By the letter of the law, the attack should be struck from the record, but because it was a lemming run, it won't be.

And apparently quick reply is anything but.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Well the rule talks about "the time of launch" rather than ETA 4 but that's by the by.

Reading the rule as a whole, "suicide" is put under the category of Farming, which suggests that it's there to cater for a deliberate attempt to increase the defender's score. The sufficient reason is that they weren't deliberately trying to increase eksero's score and there's no reason to suggest that hirr are being particularly dishonest about it.

I'm more than happy to debate semantics and different methods of interpreting laws if you want. This situation is quite unfortunate, but not against the rules. The real problem of the rule is that it is highly subjective and needs to be more specific as to what it caters for.

I thought we agreed long ago, with reference to the support planet's rule, that arguing rules for pa based on intentions is retarded? Nonetheless the intention was for all their ships to die. The inevitable result of that is a salvage donation. As Hyperion says above

We knew what might happen, we debated on adjusting tactics to try to minimize the effect, but in the end we were unwilling/too lazy to change.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I thought we agreed long ago, with reference to the support planet's rule, that arguing rules for pa based on intentions is retarded? Nonetheless the intention was for all their ships to die. The inevitable result of that is a salvage donation. As Hyperion says above

Well that's why the rule needs rewriting but if we're using a rule that caters for intent (and I maintain that the wording clearly does) I don't see you having a leg to stand on here.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Well that's why the rule needs rewriting but if we're using a rule that caters for intent I don't see you having a leg to stand on here.

Well, the intent was to suicide right? There's pretty much no way to do that in PA without donating salvage these days. It'd be something akin to driving your car into a wall and then claiming no liability for any damage done to anything bar the wall itself.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Well, the intent was to suicide right? There's pretty much no way to do that in PA without donating salvage these days. It'd be something akin to driving your car into a wall and then claiming no liability for any damage done to anything bar the wall itself.

The problem is the way that the rule is labeled as farming along with the use of "suicide" in inverted commas which suggests its overall intent is to prevent people from deliberately going out to benefit a particular planet. The fact that there is this phrase

Originally Posted by Fiery

An attack will be deemed a suicide if there is no realistic chance at the time of launch to gain anything, whether ships, score or experience, from landing the attack.

implies that the rule is out to stop donations taken in conjunction with the rule as a whole. PA Team clearly did not intend to stop suicide attacks, they intended to stop donations and we can trawl back through PA history to confirm that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)

EDIT - let me make it clear I think the rule talks a load of crap and is just really badly worded in general, but this is my interpretation of it. Although if I did reword it, I'd still create a still provision to exclude things like lemming runs, as to outlaw them totally would remove what for some people is a fun element of the game

[Knight Theamion]

Actually if you map it to the EULA then JBG is right.

[Cutthroat]

Boy do you guys need to get your heads out of your *****.

Although on second thought if you don't there's more for us to point at and laugh about.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

Actually if you map it to the EULA then JBG is right.

Just looked up the EULA on the sign up page and it seems largely silent on the issue.

18.1. Farming:
Farming is illegal. The definitions of farming are, but are not limited to:
(a) Attacking a target with his/her consent to get his/her asteroids/ships
(b) Defending against someone who is attacking with their consent to steal
their ships.
(c) Abusing game features in order to gain excessive XP (e.g. roid farming)
(d) Doing either a, b or c by using multi-planets

'Not limited to' suggests that Fiery can pretty much make up whatever definitions of farming she wants. And she made up that. Essentially we need a new rule that gives:

1) a general defnition of farming
2) has more specific examples of farming
3) has a catch all provision to cater for things people haven't thought of yet.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

The problem is the way that the rule is labeled as farming along with the use of "suicide" in inverted commas which suggests its overall intent is to prevent people from deliberately going out to benefit a particular planet. The fact that there is this phrase

Well farming in it's normal connotations implies a two sided agreement. I'm not claiming any such existed here nor does this particular rule require one. How it could not be classified as a suicide is beyond me.

implies that the rule is out to stop donations taken in conjunction with the rule as a whole. PA Team clearly did not intend to stop suicide attacks, they intended to stop donations and we can trawl back through PA history to confirm that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)

As far as I recall that particular rule was introduced as a response to suicidal fleets which were affecting the end result of rounds. This actually happened to elviz in r22 I believe where he had salvage stripped from him. My memory of that round is a little hazy but I'm fairly confident on that.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Well farming in it's normal connotations implies a two sided agreement. I'm not claiming any such existed here nor does this particular rule require one. How it could not be classified as a suicide is beyond me.

The problem is the crap use of the second suicide which clearly means an attack this is disguised as a suicide, but it actually isn't. It could be a lot clearer, but it isn't. I'm just telling you what i think Fiery wants to mean from the wording. So don't hate the player, hate the game.

As far as I recall that particular rule was introduced as a response to suicidal fleets which were affecting the end result of rounds. This actually happened to elviz in r22 I believe where he had salvage stripped from him. My memory of that round is a little hazy but I'm fairly confident on that.

Can we get all of Conspiracy Theory deleted if that's the case?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

The problem is the crap use of the second suicide which clearly means an attack this is disguised as a suicide, but it actually isn't. It could be a lot clearer, but it isn't. I'm just telling you what i think Fiery wants to mean from the wording. So don't hate the player, hate the game.

I can't interpet that consistently from what was written at all really. I mean in reality there's not just "i want my ships to die" and "i want this guy to gain from me dying" in terms of intentions. There's a whole host of options in between.

Can we get all of Conspiracy Theory deleted if that's the case?

I don't think any people before this launched their attack with the intention of not recalling. If they did fair enough, remove that salvage too.

Originally Posted by Cutthroat

Boy do you guys need to get your heads out of your *****.

Although on second thought if you don't there's more for us to point at and laugh about.

Heaven forbid someone attempt to have a reasonable discussion over something on the internet?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I can't interpet that consistently from what was written at all really. I mean in reality there's not just "i want my ships to die" and "i want this guy to gain from me dying" in terms of intentions. There's a whole host of options in between.

Really the fact you want your ships to die is irrelevant, it's the reason why you want them to die. I mean the ideal outcome for hirr would probably be inflicting mass damage which taking heavy losses themselves. Obviously someone could lie through their teeth about why they did stuff, but the MH don't have to take their word for it and really we shouldn't have rules that work like this.

I don't think any people before this launched their attack with the intention of not recalling. If they did fair enough, remove that salvage too.

I just thought it was a good opportunity to whip in a quick burn of CT's crashing record rather than anything serious.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Really the fact you want your ships to die is irrelevant, it's the reason why you want them to die. I mean the ideal outcome for hirr would probably be inflicting mass damage which taking heavy losses themselves. Obviously someone could lie through their teeth about why they did stuff, but the MH don't have to take their word for it and really we shouldn't have rules that work like this.

I hesitate here as it feels like we're in danger of going in circles but as I said before surely the reasons why you want your ships to die are irrelevant too? All the rule itself makes reference to is the actual situation and the end result. We've already clarified it's different from conventional "farming" regardless, why do we need to keep considerations of intent beyond the immediate in play?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I hesitate here as it feels like we're in danger of going in circles but as I said before surely the reasons why you want your ships to die are irrelevant too? All the rule itself makes reference to is the actual situation and the end result. We've already clarified it's different from conventional "farming" regardless, why do we need to keep considerations of intent beyond the immediate in play?

Well I did suggest this when I went on about semantics earlier, because you can first of all take several different approaches of interpretation to the rule and the wording is so terrible you can go to town on the interpretation. I've just used the method I felt did the rule most justice to actually do what it set out to achieve. I think your interpretation is logical, I just disagree with the one you've taken.

If anything, PA team should get someone who is actually good at writing to write up these rules so they provide sufficient clarity to the users and consistency in their application.

[HyperionHK]

Man, the definition of farming some people here are talking about seems to indicate that ANY attack in which someone crashes is farming and salvage donating

if we're using that quote from Fiery, I don't see how the lemmingrun falls into a "suicide" run. hirr's attack had no less of a chance of succeeding than any other attack at the time of launch. If defence hadn't arrived, even if he had released his production we would have roided him and destroyed structures most likely. hirr never told anyone the launch time or target of the run ahead of time as far as I know. It was a launch occurring at a pretty standard launch time. If you're going by the letter of the law, hirr attack can't even be classified as a 'suicide' attack.

Yes, our hope was to crash our ships, but we didn't do anything to further that goal other than launch them at a high profile target. We gave them no more chance to defend than any other attack. We had no idea how much salvage he would get or anything like that.

If anything, rail against the ridiculous amount of salvage that can be gained, or the hidden production feature that allows someone to keep ships that are essentially completely invulnerable from anything

EDIT:
Seriously, I'd like to see someone try to explain how hirr's lemmingrun could be declared a "suicide" attack based on this definition

Originally Posted by Fiery

3) Farming
- Ship "suiciding" will cause the beneficiary planet to be adjusted to the state it was in before the suicidal attack. An attack will be deemed a suicide if there is no realistic chance at the time of launch to gain anything, whether ships, score or experience, from landing the attack. These will be judged on a case by case basis, and human error will be taken into account, but unless sufficient reason is given, the suiciding planet will be closed.

[Mzyxptlk]

Already done, salvage is halved for next round.

[M0RPH3US]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Already done, salvage is halved for next round.

says who ?

[Mzyxptlk]

Originally posted by Mzyxptlk

[Tommy]

"Muh-Ziks-Put-Luk"

[[JungleMuffin]]

If the lemmingrun had gone the other way, ir eksero losing roids at a loss, or even a decent chunk of score, many of these people would be applauding hirr.

You cant have your cake and eat it too. Deal with it.

[[JungleMuffin]]

Originally Posted by Achilles

Unless you think keeping more value in prod than you have out is good for your alliance? Or never, ever attacking your alliances main enemy for the whole round? Don't get me wrong, I don't think what he did was objectionable in any way, but it definitely wasn't what was in VgN's best interest.

ie. if I was stuck in an alliance of lunatics and I still wanted a good planet I would keep my head down too.

From what i can tell, VgN's main goal has been to stop Asc from winning. Potentially, eks may have done that. Prey tell, by accomplishing one of his alliances main objectives for the round, how has he shafted them?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]

If the lemmingrun had gone the other way, ir eksero losing roids at a loss, or even a decent chunk of score, many of these people would be applauding hirr.

You cant have your cake and eat it too. Deal with it.

You are such a ****ing retard it actually offends me.




Hyperion, there was no realistic chance of hirr making a decent landing on eksero. Between his gal and his alliance, 45 mil value of mixed fi/co/fr/de/cr/bs which started prelaunching at 6pm in, mostly I think, 3 fleets with the rather obvious hirr lemming run fleetnames added, which launched in staggered order, ie cr/bs one tick, fr/de the next and fi/co the tick after (making prelaunched def easy), as an attack which everyone knew wasn't recalling and as such would be easy to convince people to save their fleets for def against, guaranteed salvage etc, had, I would say, about a 0.3% chance of making a non-suicidal (I'm defining this as significant value losses for the attackers and a value gain for the defenders) landing.

[Tommy]

He's not stopped Asc from winning, he's just stolen the planet win (which in reality means nothing, as unlike alliance win it typically takes a bit more than a single lemming run to change who takes it). Nobody really cares who wins #1 planet, except those who find themselves in the running.

[Jellinek]

Originally Posted by Tommy

ROCK's lemming run

How on earth could that be called a lemmingrun, coming from not hirr?

[Tommy]

Originally Posted by Jellinek

How on earth could that be called a lemmingrun, coming from not hirr?

Because we're helping hirr kill their remaining ships!

[Considence]

Way to play politics hirr, now everyone knows all you need to do to secure a round win is piss off some hirr hcs along the way and you will be fine.

[zebra]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Hyperion, there was no realistic chance of hirr making a decent landing on eksero. Between his gal and his alliance, 45 mil value of mixed fi/co/fr/de/cr/bs which started prelaunching at 6pm in, mostly I think, 3 fleets with the rather obvious hirr lemming run fleetnames added, which launched in staggered order, ie cr/bs one tick, fr/de the next and fi/co the tick after (making prelaunched def easy), as an attack which everyone knew wasn't recalling and as such would be easy to convince people to save their fleets for def against, guaranteed salvage etc, had, I would say, about a 0.3% chance of making a non-suicidal (I'm defining this as significant value losses for the attackers and a value gain for the defenders) landing.

This is all just your interpretation of 'realistic chance', even though it is only the MH's interpretation that counts per the rule. Personally, I think it is unfair to base the chance of landing on defense which may or may not actually launch rather than the actual conditions at the time of launch; if not, I'd wager to say more than a few crashes on asc this round haven't had a realistic chance of landing at the time of launch considering how well asc defends as an ally, their concentrated gals, their larger defense fleets, their tendency to defend in favor of attack, etc. I think it's also worth mentioning that even an unrealistic chance can still successfully land -- ask Gate, who's circumstances were far more unrealistic than those on Eksero.

[Tommy]

It was more a comment on the fact that Jungle is sitting here complaining about the salvage donations while defending both in order to take salvage for himself.

Kenny crashed on elviz largely because he was bored and I told him about the hirr run - it was an ironic gesture, and as such, not intended to give elviz the win. That's what matters, isn't it?

[Light]

Originally Posted by Tommy

It was more a comment on the fact that Jungle is sitting here complaining about the salvage donations while defending both in order to take salvage for himself.

Kenny crashed on elviz largely because he was bored and I told him about the hirr run - it was an ironic gesture, and as such, not intended to give elviz the win. That's what matters, isn't it?

or, you told him about the hiir run and that it put eksero in contention for #1, so he decided to donate to elviz to make him #1.

[Tommy]

Except Kenny's fleet was nowhere near big enough to do so. Seriously, how is it that the same people who said that it's now ok to suicide as long as you're hirr are saying you're not allowed to do the same purely for fun if you're not?

[ATRO]

The fight for #1 is descending into the ridiculous.

I must admit i cringed a little when i saw people complaining about the hirr lemmingrun and what it has done for eksero but then i got to thinking..... I didn't see this as an asc whinge as the lemmingrun doesn't normally have an impact on the top ranks and this round it does. If CT,ND,VgN, insert any other random ally here, were in the running for #1 planet and the lemmingrun jeopardized it i'm sure they would be pointing out the obvious on here just like asc have.

What i find completely hilarious now is the fact that some of the people who were laughing and pointing at asc are now complaining that elviz has been crashed on to a lesser extent.

How do you classify if someone is donating or just having fun?

What's done is done, let eksero take the planet win, whomever hirr choose to crash on is going to affect someone elses planetrank whether it be missing out on #1 or t100.

[lokken]

Cleaned up the thread. Don't be shit, I'm not in a banning kind of mood today, but you're trying really hard to change that. Thanks.

[dabult]

It is stupid to argue intentions and only shows your failing knowledge about hirr and its past. The first ever lemmingrun was performed on 'alec the cnut'? in r2? (was before my hirr-time) something like that, it has been a tradition since then, has occured every single round and this one was no exception.

We are nothing but happy that the idiotic salvage formula gets changed thanks to us.

So chill out, what is done is done and wont ever happen under organised terms again.
Everybody can give this discussion a rest now, its not like we're going to play the next round.

[Light]

Here is Foxman stating his intentions on March 20th if elviz ever needed donations, anyone else in #shiver who logs can also confirm:
http://pastebin.com/m19f72e21

[[JungleMuffin]]

Originally Posted by ATRO

The fight for #1 is descending into the ridiculous.

I must admit i cringed a little when i saw people complaining about the hirr lemmingrun and what it has done for eksero but then i got to thinking..... I didn't see this as an asc whinge as the lemmingrun doesn't normally have an impact on the top ranks and this round it does. If CT,ND,VgN, insert any other random ally here, were in the running for #1 planet and the lemmingrun jeopardized it i'm sure they would be pointing out the obvious on here just like asc have.

What i find completely hilarious now is the fact that some of the people who were laughing and pointing at asc are now complaining that elviz has been crashed on to a lesser extent.

How do you classify if someone is donating or just having fun?

What's done is done, let eksero take the planet win, whomever hirr choose to crash on is going to affect someone elses planetrank whether it be missing out on #1 or t100.

Imo a 45mil val wave at eksero has a chance of a negative impact on his planet.

Numerouse single fleet CO waves on 800k pillagers, on the other hand, cannot.

Edit: Sorry, no longer 800k pilly, appears hes capped some CO.... down to 200k and alot of stolen emp def now

[Knight Theamion]

Originally Posted by Light

Here is Foxman stating his intentions on March 20th if elviz ever needed donations, anyone else in #shiver who logs can also confirm:
http://pastebin.com/m19f72e21

unfortunately, logs are not and won't ever be proof, unless they are directly logged by an MH or someone in a similar position afaik!

[[JungleMuffin]]

Whats your view with regards to elviz being closed for this Theam? For or against?

[Knight Theamion]

To be honest, I am against the salvage of the last 3 days.

But my opinion of what 'should be done' is heavily tainted by 'what I like to see happen'.

I think the two events are intertwined and therefor not to be seen seperately. You cannot allow random people suiciding on eksero for an arbritary reason while not allowing others to do the same on elviz. Be it in teams or solo. (Note that hirr has said that they 'did not calculate anything, just wanted to suicide'. (paraphrased here)). So or they get both salvage (and carDi as well etc) or no one gets anything at all (bar shiplosses maybe, but no 'profit').

[[JungleMuffin]]

And you dont see a distinct difference between hirr launching a 45 mil attack on eksero, with the intention of killing value (not just their own), and tobbe/kenny/foxman launching juicy CO crash waves on elviz?

Do you see a difference in the type of relationship eksero has with hirr, compared with what elvi has with the above mentioned?

[Knight Theamion]

Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]

And you dont see a distinct difference between hirr launching a 45 mil attack on eksero, with the intention of killing value (not just their own), and tobbe/kenny/foxman launching juicy CO crash waves on elviz?

Do you see a difference in the type of relationship eksero has with hirr, compared with what elvi has with the above mentioned?

There is a difference in relation, but it is not relevant.

[lokken]

Please note that accusations of cheating on the forum is against the rules where you don't provide evidence.

[[JungleMuffin]]

My apologies lok.

How so theam? I feel intention is quite relavent.

[Knight Theamion]

The intention of both is then the same, hence irrelevant: 'having all ships killed'.

[[JungleMuffin]]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

The intention of both is then the same, hence irrelevant: 'having all ships killed'.

Hirr intended to make eks drop prod, and kill att/def fleets. Hirr had a reasonable expectation to think they could land that wave with soley eksero's fleets. Im not quite sure 1mil ETD ships come out victorious against 800k pillager.

I understand elviz's attackers killed all his pillagers, but is it quite the same?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by lokken

please note that accusations of cheating on the forum is against the rules where you don't provide evidence.

some people clearly didn't understand my subtle hint

[[ND]Byrney]

There's a very clear difference between the hirr attack on eksero and the solo donations to elviz. According to the rules:

3) Farming
- Ship "suiciding" will cause the beneficiary planet to be adjusted to the state it was in before the suicidal attack. An attack will be deemed a suicide if there is no realistic chance at the time of launch to gain anything, whether ships, score or experience, from landing the attack. These will be judged on a case by case basis, and human error will be taken into account, but unless sufficient reason is given, the suiciding planet will be closed.

In the case of hirr attacking eksero, at the time of launch there was a chance they could land in a way that would be beneficial to them. On the other hand, solo co waves on elviz on his (originally lol) 1mil+ pillagers had no chance whatsoever of doing anything but donating salvage, barring a Gate-esque prelaunch debacle If they'd all launched at the same time and it had required even 1 def fleet to cover I'd say different, but all salvage from those solo fleets should be removed according to what the rules state.

[tobbe]

Originally Posted by [JungleMuffin]

And you dont see a distinct difference between hirr launching a 45 mil attack on eksero, with the intention of killing value (not just their own), and tobbe/kenny/foxman launching juicy CO crash waves on elviz?

Do you see a difference in the type of relationship eksero has with hirr, compared with what elvi has with the above mentioned?

Man, i cant launch on elviz to crash, as im ingal.

[Fuzzy]

and regarding foxmans crash, i launched with him on isilx, i recalled...he didnt.