Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
(...)
But fact is wakey that isnt a bluff. A bluff would be mailing my attacker telling him 'oh ive built ships for you to land on' thats a bluff, asking somone to send his fleet out is not a bluff. Its a request, which if kile had done so, would of got kile closed. And if kile had let him land, he would of most likely been reported anyway as farming for salvage to win the round. So he did the right thing in reporting it.
|
Do we have to read here that the MH teams are reading all mails sent in game?
If no one is reporting this situation, the problem would simply have not existed, on neither side.
Who hasn't ever landed a fleet on a much bigger planet who actually ran a fleet because they simply felt that losing many ships is a worse thing than allowing some roids to go? Would that be farming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
(...)
So he was asking kileman to send his fleet out, allowing him to farm off him. Which would of course have gotten kileman closed.
(...)
|
Or... do we have to understand that everytime someone lands a good attack, the MH are looking at the mails between those two?
Who, if indeed Kileman would have chosen to run his fleet and let him land, for whatever reason (including maybe the wise reason to save ships), could be in a position to make any of them two closed?
Who, ever, has reported a landing in his gal or alliance, on behalf of someone else, suspecting a cheat? Do people do that? (if so they're really sad people)
So, when anybody decides to leave his planet empty so an attacker will land, it becomes farming? Then we have all been farming multiple times, without knowing in advance. And then I have to suppose that
all of those cases had to be examined by the MH team to detect a cheat attempt.
I can't honestly say that Bintara used the right words to talk to the MH (from the posted logs), but sorry, this closure is ridiculous.
Firstly, it is ridiculous from Kileman to report that. It makes me think of pre-school fights. Why didn't he simply ignore the mail, and let his attacker do whatever he wanted, especially if that would be a crash? Why wouldn't he do nothing about it? Why did HE create the problem and got a player closed?
Secondly, as xontas said it, it would make sense to re-open him afterwards, because I can't honestly see any cheating in there. It didn't even happen, and it wouldn't have happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bane
(...)
Even though the guy was quite rude to the MH team I think he was more shocked than genuinely trying to be an ass because he couldn't get his head around the rule. You gave him the warning but closing him now seems more out of spite, again as I said before, unless he tried it again or even took his behaviour further.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat
(...)
And really its only cheating if he actually landed. And then if that happened i think you would have to call it blinding stupidity on Kileman's side, rather than cheating by Bintara.
(...)
|
I totally agree. It is pushing it a bit too far, and I don't think this kind of extreme enforcing of the rules will make PA more popular. Again, it would have been cheating if it were arranged, and it wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin
(...)
Kileman isnt closed becuase he simply to me told him he was just going to die if he landed on him.
(...)
|
Which makes my feeling that Kileman was a little sissy in this case even stronger. Again, why on earth did he care to report this?
I have, in the past, mailed some guy because he was defending against my own attack. It just happens that that defender was an online friend, and I wanted my attack to land. I just mailed him to say something like "Hey pal, could you let me land? Can't force you but I'd appreciate." Can anyone honestly say that this is cheat? It is just up to the guy to decide what he does, I don't see any problem there.
This case is about the same, except it's not involving a 3rd party:
- "Let me land",
- "No.",
- "Please I'd like the score and don't care of the roids",
- "No again."
Where is the problem???
I don't have any kind of interest in defending Bintara's opinion here, but I strongly believe that this "PA Police" is out of its role here. Multying and "proper" farming is one thing. Asking a favour is not, in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Assassin/EULA
18.6. Miscellaneous cheating
(a) Attempts to encourage other planets to break the rules will be considered
a breach of this agreement
|
Is this clearly condemning "intent offence" indirectly? So, if someone says "hey if you let me farm you" and the other one refuses, it is still a cheat? The fact that he had the intention, or even rather an envy, to get loads of XP by trying to persuade the guy to go off, is in itself an offence?
Same thing if I went into a bank and asked the cashier "hey, can you let me have all those nice notes?" (without any form of threatening) and he told me "No". This is no offence. So what, if he calls the police, and the police questions me, and I say "He yes, I would have like to have them, but he didn't want to let me have them", will I be jailed? Bloody hell no, please be serious...
I reckon that if the guy did say "OK" then HE becomes an offender too (as long as I didn't threaten in any way, that is) by participating in a theft, but again in this case, Kileman said "sorry, no way you land on me". This in itself suffices to close the whole thing without any necessary closure, I think.
This rule is understandable in its intended purpose, as it is generally not good to cheat at anything, but this kind of exchange of mails between 2 players can't be considered cheating, or even an attempt of cheating. I know that farming is cheating, but...
If for instance:
- I'm attacking a planet with, say, my FR, because I notice it has no anti-FR, is that farming? No.
- The same planet has no ressources to buy any anti-FR. Is this farming? No.
- The planet HAS ressources, but don't spend them. Is it farming? No.
- Even if I mail to ask "He please don't buy defence", is that farming? No.
- If we agree
first, prior to attacking, (on IRC or in mail) that he wouldn't buy defence (or in this precise case send it away), is it farming then? Then yes...
But basically, how is this "...(encouraging) other planets to break the rules will be considered a breach of this agreement"? Where is the encouraging? Are there any threats to do so? Is it any kind of pressure? And indeed, when he said that Kileman could even have the roids back, that is not an encouragement in itself either. There is no encouragement as there is no reward. It is simply a demand, that has not even been accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cura
B|nTaRa is a loser for begging people to let them land.
Ace is a loser for wasting his time with stuff like that (if you close him you can close half the pathetic universe).
Kileman is a loser for reporting.
(...)
|
Well, yes in a certain way.
Maybe the rule 18.6.a) should be rewritten, or even suppressed. People, all over PA universe, agree to landings & roidings, attacks & defence, etc.
Giving away coords of an easy target is invitation to farming then, and thus could be considered an infraction to 18.6.a). Everybody knows that there are inactive planets. Finding them & roiding them is not farming, it's gaming. Giving coords is encouraging farming. But everybody knows that this is a common practice, and I know of no one who has been closed for roiding an inactive planet after receiving coords from anyone.
In this case, what would have happened if Kileman wouldn't have answered (and reported) the first mail? Likely he would have recalled, and that was it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiery
(...)
For those of you who think that closure was excessive, feel free to come up with a different punishment for people who try to get others to cheat and come discuss it with me. You may find me in #multihunters.
(...)
|
Well, what kind of "other punishments" could there be? Re-opening would make sense, again, as this punishment is highly out of proportions with the "cheat" request. The only real punishment he would have had, is if Kileman had said "OK, land" and kept his anti-FR at base
(even if that would have been particularly wicked...
)
Just throwing ideas, but punishing this kind of "cheat" (encouraging another player to cheat) could be punished by... 3 days closure? Removal of all ships (or up to X value)? Removal of all roids? Resetting XP? Auto-exiling? I don't know, but many sanctions could be put in place, as said by AdmV0rl0n too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n
(...)
For useless players like me, and lower order players who play for fun, they are more likely to learn by being penalised in some way. Obviously, in the case of seasoned or large players who are shooting for top spot, the effect of cheating to win is different from some numpty being dimwitted.
How would you handle this in a way thats non arbitrary?
Well, I would say you treat the top 200 more harshly than the next 200 and so on. If some dimwit in 3999th place does something stupid, then drag them into #multihunters and bollock them. They will go away and know that they are being watched.
|
Indeed. This doesn't mean that being a low scored player implies that you know less of the EULA, or the contrary, but the implications on the game itself have far less consequences.
I just though I'd post here, as I think it is highly unfair to have closed Bintara on this reported mail, even though I agree he could have easily defended his case more politely & in a more efficient way...
For those who have been patient enough to read all this, thank you for your time