User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Discussions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 13:34   #1
ComradeRob
wasted
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
ComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriend
Is scanning for someone unfair?

If I do a scan for you, without receiving some form of 'compensation', is this unfair?

This is a very simple question which should have a very simple answer. However, it might not be as simple as it first appears.

The first question is this: to whom might the unfairness apply? Obviously it cannot be unfair to me, or I would not have agreed to do it. And it cannot be unfair to the person I'm scanning for, because he has lost nothing. The only possible grounds for regarding scanning as unfair is that it is unfair to everyone else, those who are not benefiting from my scans. It would be wrong to say that they are being actively harmed by my scanning; the suggestion is merely that they are not receiving a benefit that others are receiving.

The reason I ask this question is in relation to the support planet rule. The support planet rule states that 'Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific and repeated actions which result in an unfair benefit for a planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.'. The key word here is 'unfair'; specific and repeated actions which result in a fair benefit are allowed; only those which are unfair are banned. There is no definition of fairness provided.

So, is scanning for someone else fair, or unfair?

My answer is this:

That some people have access to more scanners than other people do is not unfair. It might be inegalitarian, but it's not unfair. There are many inequalities in Planetarion; some people have better galaxies than others, some have better access to defence, some have friends and contacts in other alliances who can shield them from incoming, and so on. Knowing - or not knowing - someone who will do a scan for you is just another one of those inequalities.

The key point is that it's easy for players to deal with these inequalities by making friends. If you need more defence, or need someone to scan for you, you need to get yourself on IRC, on the forums, or use some means of building up a social network. This is what Planetarion is all about and it's very important that the game rewards people for making social connections. Otherwise, you just have a dull, antiquated browser game.

If I have a friend do some scans for me, that is not unfair, because anyone else could have their friends do scans for them. If they don't have any friends, then they should find some. And if scanning for someone else, even someone not in your tag, is fair then such scanning cannot violate the support rule, because it's not unfair.

Am I wrong here?
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
ComradeRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 13:48   #2
Almeida
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Austria, Vienna
Posts: 326
Almeida is a splendid one to beholdAlmeida is a splendid one to beholdAlmeida is a splendid one to beholdAlmeida is a splendid one to beholdAlmeida is a splendid one to beholdAlmeida is a splendid one to beholdAlmeida is a splendid one to behold
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

i absolutly agree and i would go even further: the entire support planet rule is useless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComradeRob
If they don't have any friends, then they should find some.
__________________
eXilition
Almeida is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 14:06   #3
Allfather
The PropaGhandi
 
Allfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 796
Allfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these parts
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

If i interpret the support planet rule right, it only applies if you do this for specific alliance and/or persons.

We in transcendancy scan for anyone regardless of status in planetarion.
__________________
Free imagehosting: Link
Free scans: #transcendancy

<Deffeh> I just told my parents im a homosexual, now they kicked me out
Allfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 14:18   #4
ComradeRob
wasted
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
ComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allfather
If i interpret the support planet rule right
You're right, but you miss the point slightly.

Support Accounts are accounts which are dedicated to undertaking specific and repeated actions

Scanning is certainly specific and is usually repeated.

which result in an unfair benefit

This is the issue which needs to be clarified.

for a planet/organisation, where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.

'Scanning for everyone' would certainly avoid violating this part of the rule.

The point is that in order to find someone guilty of violating the support rule, their actions need to meet all three criteria above (1) specific and repeated, 2) unfair, 3) for the benefit of a specific planet/alliance).

My question is about the second criterion, not the first or the third.
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
ComradeRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 15:05   #5
robban1
Registered User
 
robban1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
robban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these parts
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

hell half the scans i get are from m8s not in the allie i play with cos of ppl are afk and so means all scanners in uni are supporters in one way or another :/
__________________
____________________________

robban1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 16:27   #6
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

The only part that might be considered as unfair is that you spend your resources in order to increase someone else's opportunities to gain more resources.

But, if that is already considered unfair, we should start deeming a lot more things as unfair. If people cannot build social networks upon the actions they can perform in the game, then the game is deemed to die as the playerbase will never ever grow again, but only replace losses it suffers (if even that).
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:16   #7
Allfather
The PropaGhandi
 
Allfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 796
Allfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these parts
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

They just closed Achi.
Why?, "he scans for everyone".

I suggjest an analraping of the entire multihuntersteam.
Mabye we can poke the stick up their ass out.
__________________
Free imagehosting: Link
Free scans: #transcendancy

<Deffeh> I just told my parents im a homosexual, now they kicked me out
Allfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:17   #8
Achilles
Poblacht na hÉireann
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
Achilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I am waiting to speak to Fiery before I comment further on this issue. I hope others can show restraint also although I know many of us are quite annoyed at the seeming hypocrisy and unfairness.
Achilles is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:33   #9
Chika
Black Power MotherF*ckas!
 
Chika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JAPAN
Posts: 1,812
Chika is a splendid one to beholdChika is a splendid one to beholdChika is a splendid one to beholdChika is a splendid one to beholdChika is a splendid one to beholdChika is a splendid one to beholdChika is a splendid one to beholdChika is a splendid one to behold
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

*** Lockhead changed the topic to: Target tonight: 1:1


Its on.
__________________
Ascendancy
When Doves Cry
Chika is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:37   #10
ComradeRob
wasted
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
ComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I started this thread to have an honest debate about the definition of 'unfair' actions as used to interpret the support planet rule, not to bash PA team. Just a warning for anyone who is thinking of doing that
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
ComradeRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:39   #11
Gerbie2
Alive and kicking
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Kingdom of the Netherlands
Posts: 220
Gerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to allGerbie2 is a name known to all
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I think having dedicated scan planets is unfair. The problem is that it's considered normal. The game is designed around the situation that scanplanets exist. The game even provides features to make sharing scans easier. Apparantly they chose to forget about their support rule.

Quote:
Obviously it cannot be unfair to me, or I would not have agreed to do it.
This is not a valid argument. You are also not allowed to build ships or initiate roids for the specific purpose of letting someone else steal them. Ship farming and roid farming are against the rules. Still some people would be willing to let themselves be farmed to help others win.
Gerbie2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:48   #12
ArcChas
General (Adjective Army)
 
ArcChas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
ArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud ofArcChas has much to be proud of
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I suppose that scanning for others could be viewed as being unfair to the player being scanned - who will often see incoming fleets (or defence against his attack) soon afterwards. The player who asks for the scans to be done would normally be incapable of obtaining the information without assistance.

If the scanner is in-tag and only scans for his alliance then this wouldn't (shouldn't?) be an issue. But out-of-tag scanners must run the risk of being considered "support planets".
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
ArcChas is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:50   #13
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
I suppose that scanning for others could be viewed as being unfair to the player being scanned - who will often see incoming fleets (or defence against his attack) soon afterwards. The player who asks for the scans to be done would normally be incapable of obtaining the information without assistance.

If the scanner is in-tag and only scans for his alliance then this wouldn't (shouldn't?) be an issue. But out-of-tag scanners must run the risk of being considered "support planets".
But why would it make a difference? Imagine the scanner in question could not be in the same tag because he was in a different tag, or because the tag of the planet which requested the scan was filled up already?
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 17:52   #14
Allfather
The PropaGhandi
 
Allfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 796
Allfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these parts
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

What is unfair Rob is letting a megalomaniac run multi hunters, if you agree or not you don't have to say here
__________________
Free imagehosting: Link
Free scans: #transcendancy

<Deffeh> I just told my parents im a homosexual, now they kicked me out
Allfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 18:04   #15
shibaMac
huzo0r
 
shibaMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 58
shibaMac has a spectacular aura aboutshibaMac has a spectacular aura about
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Yes, it is unfair. Rob said himself that there are many inequalities in PA, and that scanning is one of them.

The way the game is designed, everyone should be doing their own scans, using their own amps/dists. Then we have some features bolted on top, like sharing scans etc which seem to indicate that PA team have realised that you can't stop people cooperating. Then we have some rules bolted on top again about support planets, intended to put a boundary on cooperation. The net result of this is a mishmash where noone, including the admins/multihunters, really know what's illegal and what's not.

The only way out of this is a dramatic change to the rules around scanning. Ideally, everyone would be doing their own scans, with no need for scan planets. I'm sure there are lots of ways to achieve this, but it needs to be done with a simple, easily understood rule.

Now, I hate to point out problems without at least suggesting some kind of solution, so here it is. Give everyone some scans at the start of the game. Say unit and jpg. Get rid of distorters and amps completely. Now everyone has to play the game with much fuller knowledge of their opponents. This does not necessarily cause a problem, as the select people with access to scanners already have this information.
shibaMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 18:06   #16
Tomkat
:alpha:
 
Tomkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I wrote a PM earlier to a couple of people on here suggesting the concept of a completely public and free #scanners channel*, where anyone and everyone who wants to play as scanner (therefore still be "in" on the game without taking it too seriously) could contribute. It'd have been open to anyone who wanted them, and I was going to ask jester if we could somehow ask Munin to store scans for people, for when scanners aren't around.

The essential idea is that scans are very difficult for newcomers to the game, and give alliances a huge advantage. The channel would be mainly for the smaller newer players (although everyone can use it if possible). Eventually, I was hoping it'd culminate in the whole scan-system being changed, as it's a bit outdated and silly.

I was even going to ask Appoco about it and perhaps ask if he could send a message to all planets inviting them to come to the channel if they needed scans. The only downside would be that we'd get their coords, so if alliances want to be super-secretive about intel then they could keep their in-house scanners. I think it'd have made a nice balance.

If this is how the rules are going to work, that people can't do scans for others if they aren't in tag, then that's that idea down the drain



*adapted from Achi's idea of the same thing, yet his is on behalf of Transcendancy atm.
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
Tomkat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 18:09   #17
Allfather
The PropaGhandi
 
Allfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 796
Allfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these parts
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Transcendancy transcends normal alliances and do are thus not affected by supportplanet rules.
__________________
Free imagehosting: Link
Free scans: #transcendancy

<Deffeh> I just told my parents im a homosexual, now they kicked me out
Allfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 18:14   #18
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I would also like to point out, that if rob was in a different alliance, a lot more people would have gained an "unfair benefit" because rob shares the scans he does with his alliance. It just increases the dilemma of this issue.
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 21:26   #19
Kargool
Up The Hatters!
 
Kargool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
Kargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet societyKargool is a pillar of this Internet society
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

the question here i guess is the definition of an alliance. *scendancy is trying to bend the definition of what an alliance is, and the multihunters didnt agree?

This isnt really a big issue the way i see it.
__________________
Planetarion veteran
Kargool is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 21:31   #20
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Per definition of the game an alliance is planets under the same tag. Nobody in *scendancy will disagree with that, as it is dictated by the game mechanics. However, from this round on it seems that multihunters are wanting to decide up to which level alliances are allowed to cooperate - which is a new development in this area. Or has anyone else ever witnessed two alliances having been warned for any kind of cooperation?
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 21:43   #21
Talin
Mildly Amused
 
Talin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 105
Talin will become famous soon enoughTalin will become famous soon enough
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

The multihunters limited alliance cooperation the moment OOGOOA rule thing was introduced, they just took it a step further every following round or two.

I don't think I can comment the event of closing someone for scanning without using an excessively aggressive tone, so I won't.

Time will show, however, that this concept of enforcing unnatural "fairness" into the game will do infinitely more damage to it than throwing the entire EULA out of the window (and letting people do literally whatever they want) would.
__________________
R4-R9.5 ETY | ViruS | Retalion | Other...
Inactive R13 and a couple of later rounds.
Talin is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 22:00   #22
NitinA
Laziness pays off NOW!
 
NitinA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pensacola, FL, USA
Posts: 596
NitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant futureNitinA has a brilliant future
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

With the relativly recent advent of cluster alliances, whose to define what scans are for people in your cluster versus scanning for an 'alliance'? For instance, if I do scans for my cluster alliance (of mixed alliances), will I be closed? Or am I supposed to keep track of the alliances within my cluster alliance? Is there really any way a multihunter can prove any of this, or is it all heresy? Seems like a load of crap to me...
__________________
Proud to have been :
[ReBorn] High Council - Wing Leader
[Knights] High Council - Founder
[Silver] High Council - Military
[WolfPack] High Council - Military
[Ascendancy] Member
[eXilition] High Council - Defence
7-Round Official Planetarion #Support Team Member
Retired Since Round 21
NitinA is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 22:02   #23
Wandows
[Vision]
 
Wandows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 897
Wandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond reputeWandows has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

The bad thing is that we'll never know what happened. I doubt MH are willing (or allowed) to discuss the reasoning behind the closures.

Very interesting will be to see how many alliances will now be getting closed for having (planet)NAPS or attack coorperation with others. Because in the light of the scan closures, these actions are a obvious unfair benefit to those involved aswell. As said in the first post already, unfairness is PA's nature, it is exactly how it is supposed to be. The only way of winning (most of the time) has been by getting as many friends/players supporting you as possible, whether they are in you tag/gal or not. And thats exactly how it should be, anyone complaining about the unfairness should just stop being shit and (learn to) gather more (and/or better) support themselves.
__________________
[Vision] in a lost dream, contributing to The 5th Element at present
Wandows is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 22:22   #24
shibaMac
huzo0r
 
shibaMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 58
shibaMac has a spectacular aura aboutshibaMac has a spectacular aura about
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kargool
the question here i guess is the definition of an alliance.
No, it's not. Back in your box!
shibaMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 22:29   #25
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I have frequently asked for, and never received, a proper definition of the word fair in so far as it pertains to the support planets rule. The fact that this round I asked for, and was received a guarantee, that I would be warned in advance if any planets violated this rule somehow (and let's be honest considering r17 1up, r19 exi, r16 asc this is a ****ing joke) in my alliance and somehow rob was closed anyways I'm confused over. I've been in #multihunters for about twenty minutes now and despite the fact two of the four voiced people are under one minute inactive nobody has bothered responding to my "hi is anyone active?" question. What I was hoping to clarify was what exactly rob, who was a member in an alliance I technically HC ingame, a title I dislike personally but I feel compelled to take on rather than inflict on anyone else, was closed for. As far as I can see it, quite literally, boils down to "you scanned for your friends". Regardless of current status, is this really the image we would want for the game?
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 22:29   #26
Achilles
Poblacht na hÉireann
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
Achilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Fiery has, quite rightly, decided to take the time to think through her decision on this issue as it will, obviously, not only have a bearing on scanning this round but on the future direction of PA in general. I have been informed that there has already been a significant amount of debate between the MH's on this issue which shows that it has the potential to be divisive, even within PATeam itself.

Kargool: Regardless of the decision of PATeam Transcendancy will be not be put off our community based initiatives of free scans, free intel and being Planetarions first fully public alliance. In that respect it is and will remain a big issue for some time to come even if that means more closures and deletions on our part.
Achilles is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 22:47   #27
Nadar
I see you!
 
Nadar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
Nadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allfather
They just closed Achi.
Why?, "he scans for everyone".
Stop being ridiculous, AF.

Or are you? I never know these days, but I assume MH can't be that stupid in their pot-tight hole?
__________________
www.foxystoat.com
Nadar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 22:59   #28
Achilles
Poblacht na hÉireann
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
Achilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

No, I was closed today by Remy, as was Rob. Both of us for scanning,
Achilles is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 23:00   #29
Allfather
The PropaGhandi
 
Allfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 796
Allfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these parts
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Just join our chan, and ask for scan or a covert op.
You will receive it no strings attached.
Only 2 limitations: 1) we cant covert op our own tag due to tag dynamics.
2) We cant hit ourselves, but feel free to ask and i can give you my entire overview in game if you are attacking me.

All your base are belong to the public!
__________________
Free imagehosting: Link
Free scans: #transcendancy

<Deffeh> I just told my parents im a homosexual, now they kicked me out
Allfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 5 Jul 2007, 23:09   #30
Nadar
I see you!
 
Nadar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
Nadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
No, I was closed today by Remy, as was Rob. Both of us for scanning,


MH and the ostrich has one thing in common: this

The MH-dep hasn't been this utterly shit since.. never. I know that you can't pick from the top of the shelf anymore due to low numbers, but for crying out loud, stop recruiting people who clearly have close to zero point fifty two and a half divided on four clue about what they're doing.
__________________
www.foxystoat.com
Nadar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 00:12   #31
Tomkat
:alpha:
 
Tomkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

I'd like to hear Remy's argument/opinion in all this. Not least because I want to know if I'm safe from being deleted, as I suppose by some definition I'm cooperating with Ascendancy too as I'm attacking similar targets to them. If the only way we find out is by being deleted without a warning, that's pretty shit.
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
Tomkat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 00:28   #32
shibaMac
huzo0r
 
shibaMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 58
shibaMac has a spectacular aura aboutshibaMac has a spectacular aura about
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I'd like to hear Remy's argument/opinion in all this.
I think it was along the lines of:

Remy: You've been scanning for asc
Rob: I'll scan for anyone who asks
Remy: But you've been mostly scanning for asc
Rob: No one else asked
Remy: Yes, but you should have pretended, then we wouldn't have caught you.
Rob:
shibaMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 01:30   #33
Zaejii
This Space for Rent
Speedy Thief Champion, Turbo Turtle Champion, Cop-For-This Champion
 
Zaejii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Zaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud of
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

i'm confused.

multiple alliances can have "joint" attacks on another alliance / galaxy / planet (fleet catches, general attacks, etc), and its not "supporting each other", but a scanner can scan for someone that asks, then get closed because he's "a support planet"?

someone care to clarify?

also, last round, it was pointed out to me by the multihunters that you could essentially make 1 real planet and 59 "support planets", form an ally, and use the 59 planets to your advantage (if you had access to enough different ips to do so) and none would be considered as "support" and would not be closed. (off topic i guess, but wanted to bring it up).
__________________
When in doubt, blame Ascendancy.
#pastats

Last edited by Zaejii; 8 Jul 2007 at 00:11.
Zaejii is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 01:37   #34
DrunkenViking
Retard0r
 
DrunkenViking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,164
DrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud ofDrunkenViking has much to be proud of
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Without knowing any details of the named cases above; i can't understand why anyone bothers "testing" the limits of the "user agreement". Whats the point? except making everyones day a tiny bit more difficult? Whats wrong with just enjoying the game while playing on the safe side?

I get the idea that the most clever ones at PA gets away with everything from supporting to farming and tbh i don't think that helps the game in any way. Hell, i had someone asking me to cov op him today in order to increase his alert. If i would have cov op'ed him, that would certainly be in breech of the supportrule yet noone would care the slightest bit.(edit: may have been a bit quick, it wouldnt be supporting if it isnt a repeated action, it would however be in breech of 18.1a) Its about time they make the rules clear before noone gives a shit about them cause thats were things are heading.

And this thread? If the rules were clear the closures would either not have happened because people would know where the line is drawn or the closures would have been undisputable. And where are we at? Noone knows what the fck is happening, not even the ones making and upholding the rules.

What about a change? No bullshit rules with no bullshit rule-enforcement pls.
__________________
-Chimpie

* We do not exist *

* G-II * NoS * VsN * Ascendancy * Osiris * xVx * Ultores *


Last edited by DrunkenViking; 6 Jul 2007 at 01:44.
DrunkenViking is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 02:11   #35
Achilles
Poblacht na hÉireann
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
Achilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
Without knowing any details of the named cases above; i can't understand why anyone bothers "testing" the limits of the "user agreement". Whats the point? except making everyones day a tiny bit more difficult? Whats wrong with just enjoying the game while playing on the safe side?
Speaking only for myself here but this is not the case at all. I have no interest in pushing any rules simply for the sake of it. What this is about is whether or not the current policy of limiting and strongly policing community interaction is right or wrong. I think it is wrong and I will take whatever steps I can to highlight that in a positive way.
Achilles is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 04:58   #36
Nadar
I see you!
 
Nadar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In any girl
Posts: 2,825
Nadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriendNadar needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenViking
If the rules were clear the closures would either not have happened
Don't be too certain about that. There are some unclear rules, but too many of the so-called "multihunters" seems to be hunting and enforcing with emotion and feelings (Like Fiery - the 1903 living woman who think you'll go to hell if you show too much skin) rather than with common sense and a slight idea what the rules are about.
__________________
www.foxystoat.com
Nadar is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 07:43   #37
ComradeRob
wasted
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Under the floorboards
Posts: 1,240
ComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriendComradeRob needs a job and a girlfriend
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shibaMac
I think it was along the lines of:

Remy: You've been scanning for asc
Rob: I'll scan for anyone who asks
Remy: But you've been mostly scanning for asc
Rob: No one else asked
Remy: Yes, but you should have pretended, then we wouldn't have caught you.
Rob:
That's a fake log, but it captures the gist of it, yeah.

I wasn't making any pretence about what I was doing: I wasn't in the Ascendancy tag, but I was scanning mostly for Ascendancy members. If I had wanted to hide what I was doing, I could have joined another alliance (say, any of the mid-ranking alliances with lax recruitment policies) and split my scans between scans for them and scans for Ascendancy - using their alliance fund to do it!

This has happened before; in fact it's quite common for alliances to send their scanners to join other alliances so that they can leech from the alliance fund. To my knowledge, nobody has ever been caught or even considered for deletion for doing this, because there's no way that the MHs would notice. The same argument applies to things like planet NAPs; it's almost undetectable, yet it involves cooperation between planets of different tags. On several occasions in the past, alliances have shared scans between themselves. Indeed, Ascendancy's bot (Munin) has a quite massive database of scans, access to which is essentially open to anyone - even people who have contributed nothing towards the cost of the scans.

It is against this background that I began scanning for Ascendancy. It seemed obvious to me that plenty of people had done things very similar to this in the past without being deleted, which suggested to me that it must be possible to do without being deleted. Remy's argument was that the fact that other people had gotten away with it in the past did not mean that I should get away with it now. On this basis, it seems that my mistake was simply not hiding my activities more carefully. But would it really have been better if I would have joined a small alliance to leech from their alliance fund while scanning for Ascendancy? I like to think that I'm smart enough to have avoided getting caught if that was my primary concern, but I simply didn't expect to have to do that.

p.s. There's really no need for some of the MH-bashing in this thread. Ad hominem attacks get us nowhere; I personally believe that the MH who closed me was wrong to do so, on the basis that I outlined above. But sometimes it's necessary for the MHs to be unpopular, because they have to do unpopular things.
__________________
“They were totally confused,” said the birdman, whose flying suit gives him a passing resemblance to Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. “The authorities said that I was an unregistered aircraft and to fly, you need a licence. I told them, ‘No. To fly, you need wings’.”
ComradeRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 09:03   #38
Allfather
The PropaGhandi
 
Allfather's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 796
Allfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these partsAllfather is infamous around these parts
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Rob is one case, and Achilles is another.
Achilles is in Transcendancy, we have a public chan (#transcendancy) where anyone can ask for scan and/or a covert free of charge.

Closing him is saying: You can have scanplanets if you only scan for your own alliance in tag, but to help those who cannot get one in their alliance (or they might not even have one) is shamefull. You play planetarion, you are not allowed to be nice to people and help out
__________________
Free imagehosting: Link
Free scans: #transcendancy

<Deffeh> I just told my parents im a homosexual, now they kicked me out
Allfather is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 11:07   #39
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Alien Invasion Champion, Submarine Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Mzyxptlk has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

People have gotten closed (and deleted?) before for scanning while not in the tag the scans were for, and by precedent and article 18.2f of the EULA, this would make all scanners that scan for one alliance while either using the resources of another tag or while not in a tag at all punishable by the support planet rule. In this light, Rob's closure (and consequent deletion?) does not come as a surprise to me.

Remy's argument is not as bad as Rob is trying to make it sound. There may be a hundred other scanners out there, bending the rules in more discrete ways, making their closure and deletion a lot less likely. But this is no reason not to close the 'stupid' (for lack of a better word) cheaters. What's next, a player using the same argument when he has 10 planets, which he all plays from the same IP, using the argument "but people who do the same from 10 different IPs don't get caught!"? And, to push the enveloppe, someone shooting someone in the head, right in front of the police station, using a similar argument? Of course not. Breaking the rules is breaking the rules, and (lack of) discreteness is irrelevant.

That said, there is something else that does worry me. JBG has brought it up before, but it doesn't seem to have made a lot of impact, so I'll repeat the argument. Prior to the round, JBG approached the multihunters and asked if what we were doing would be tolerated. The answer was "yes", but it was not a definitive one. But, so was promised, if any action was performed by a player in the Descendancy tag which was considered a breach of the EULA (and, presumably, 18.2f in particular), he'd (or we'd) receive a warning, with a chance to redeem himself (ourselves), rather than facing immediate and permanent closure and possibly removal of the tag as a whole.

This promise, or agreement if you will, has been grossly violated with Rob's closure, and this makes me wonder. How much is the word of the multihunters really worth? If a simple preround agreement is violated not two weeks later, how can we trust them to apply the same rule in the same fashion over the course of 2, 3, or more rounds?

Of course, I realise the multihunters are humans, just like the rest of us. Perfect objectivity can never be achieved, so a certain bias will have to be accepted (note, I'm not accusing anyone of being biased) as part of the nature of the way rules are enforced, not only in Planetarion, but in the world in general. This does not however mean we should not try our best to limit the margin in which bias can result in deletion in one case, and reopening in another, identical case. The only way to do this, without replacing the multihunters by perfectly non-discriminate bots, is by allowing less uncertainty in the rules, and once again, in particularly article 18.2f, which has been the target for much dissatisfaction (note that even if the clearly fictional option of replacing the multihunters with bots was to be chosen, the rules would still have to be set in stone).

In my opinion, the entire article should be removed from the EULA. It does more harm than good, people never really know what they can and can't do. And (in reply to Chimpie's argument) since the character of this game is a competetive one, people are encouraged to bend the rules, rather than play on the safe side. After all, the rules are in place to prevent "unfair benefit" (once again, 18.2f), so bending the rules theoretically provides one with an advantage (unfair or otherwise), which may just be enough to make the difference between winning a round and losing it.



Note that this entire post only applies to Rob's closure. Transcendancy never had an agreement with the multihunters, Achi never used Rob's argument to keep himself open, did not really break the rules, because he doesn't scan for an organisation ("(...) where an organisation is defined as an alliance or galaxy.", 18.2f of the EULA), but for anyone who asks, and the expected outcome for his case is his reopening, while in Rob's case, I don't expect it to turn out this way.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.

Last edited by Mzyxptlk; 6 Jul 2007 at 11:13.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 11:40   #40
Jester
Pedantic hypocrite
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
Jester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
People have gotten closed (and deleted?) before for scanning while not in the tag the scans were for, and by precedent
The multihunters don't consider precedent.

Scans are easily an unfair benefit. Consider two players, both wish to attack. Neither have scan technology. One has access to scans via a scanner.

Which is more likely to be successful? It is literally impossible to attack reliably without scans.

The real question here is whether providing scans from one tag to another is unfair. Did Rob provide unfair benefit to Ascendancy by being sat in the Descendancy tag while scanning?

Personally, I think no. And here's why:

Ascendancy currently have 66 members, so they would have room for Rob inside the tag. Even under the old restraints, his value/score are low enough that he could have joined.

Ascendancy would have benefited from having Rob in the tag. They could have donated resources to the alliance fund, they could have viewed his scans via the alliance DB and they could have sent him in-tag defense if he was being attacked by SKs. Whereas in the Descendancy tag he was very unlikely to ever receive defense, he was unable to draw on a rich alliance fund and he his scans were available only to inactives and covoppers.

While the whole *scendancy thing is an attempt to get around the alliance limit, it is not an attempt to break the rules. We have over 70 members, we don't know what to do with them. So we've let them divide themselves into two (well, as many as they want) different groups. The Descendancy group was originally for people who weren't going to play this round competitively.

I think Rob made a mistake by joining the Descendancy tag rather than the Ascendancy tag, but as I reasoned above, I don't think he ended up providing anyone with unfair benefit by doing so.

I'd also like to point out that the Multihunters agreed to warn us if the interactions between Descendancy and Ascendancy tags were getting close to violating the rules, but failed to do so. It's hard to play by the rules when no one tells you what they are.
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 12:13   #41
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
Ascendancy currently have 66 members, so they would have room for Rob inside the tag. Even under the old restraints, his value/score are low enough that he could have joined.
This is a valid argument. Yet, it is being made invalid by:

Quote:
While the whole *scendancy thing is an attempt to get around the alliance limit, it is not an attempt to break the rules.
While we can argue about the reasonability and necessity of such alliance limits (an argument where I totally agree with you a lot: they're stupid, and a lot of other rules enforcement pieces are a bit haywired, which I have been arguing for for a while now), isn't an attempt to get around the alliance limit an attempt to break the rules, de facto, giving that the alliance limit is a set rule? To me, Fiery said that the tag scheme is accepted as with the promise that there will be no cooperation between the tags. Like it or not, sitting on a private channel handing out scans to members of an alliance while your own alliance pretty much consumes no scans at all (?) can probably be interpreted as support. As strange as it sounds, but then again there's a lot of room for interpretation in the rules.

What comes to more and less discrete cheating, Mzyxptlk has a few valid points. This can be elaborated by instances such as the Arc-Bintara -case last round. This can be elaborated by the fact that in the past too, certain influential and upwards looked community members are more able to get themselves special permissions to go around a given rule (Round 17, where a certain alliance had more than the allowed 65 - was it then? - members, while other alliances were told that this is not plausible behavior). It all comes down to what we define "acceptable bias".

While I think the whole mess is ridiculous, there also remains the point Mzyxptlk mentioned that a discrete "cheat" should be punishable if getting nailed as well as a less discrete one. We could also present evidence of past "discrete" avoidings of the alliance limits, where the multihunters have just said there's not enough evidence, otherwise action would be taken, but the thing is, now there seems to be more plausible evidence.

Quote:
We have over 70 members, we don't know what to do with them.
The intuitive choice would be not to recruit more than 70 members (as the tag limit is in place to prevent alliances from recruiting more than 70; hereby I'm not arguing that the rule is good and should be in place, I am arguing that while one is in place it's probably there to be played by).

Quote:
I think Rob made a mistake by joining the Descendancy tag rather than the Ascendancy tag, but as I reasoned above, I don't think he ended up providing anyone with unfair benefit by doing so.
Yes, I agree on both - a mistake, more on the Descendancy tag part, taking into account that Rob's prominent as being the owner of the Ascendancy group. I'm a little confused and I have really no clue whether the *scendancies share channels or not, and what they share or don't, so I guess it's best if I do not comment on it.

Quote:
I'd also like to point out that the Multihunters agreed to warn us if the interactions between Descendancy and Ascendancy tags were getting close to violating the rules, but failed to do so. It's hard to play by the rules when no one tells you what they are.
Indeed. And the harder it gets when it depends a lot on the multihunter at hands (say: in my case, one agreed that my Planet/Rulername The Gay Adventures of Hot Boylover George, aimed as a joke between myself and voodoo, isn't a very offensive one, and allowed me to maintain it, and the following day another multihunter was threatening to close me over it). I'll revert back to my five point plan when dealing with the multihunters. The actual "breach" is sometimes less significant: what's more significant is how you deal with the multihunters, and whether they're having a bad hair day or not.

The whole section 18 is in a need of a serious revamp. The lists of rules given make things unnecessarily complicated: as mentioned, scanners inserted to other alliances to leech fund and spy - are considered as members of which alliance in respect to the memberlimit? What about "less competitively playing" alliance members in the sole function of defending the given alliance's members for example incluster? Impossible to prove, pretty much known to have been done. It's all a little bit of a mess.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 12:21   #42
Jester
Pedantic hypocrite
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Back and to the left
Posts: 1,488
Jester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond reputeJester has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
This is a valid argument. Yet, it is being made invalid by:



While we can argue about the reasonability and necessity of such alliance limits (an argument where I totally agree with you a lot: they're stupid, and a lot of other rules enforcement pieces are a bit haywired, which I have been arguing for for a while now), isn't an attempt to get around the alliance limit an attempt to break the rules, de facto, giving that the alliance limit is a set rule? To me, Fiery said that the tag scheme is accepted as with the promise that there will be no cooperation between the tags.

What comes to more and less discrete cheating, Mzyxptlk has a few valid points. This can be elaborated by instances such as the Arc-Bintara -case last round. This can be elaborated by the fact that in the past too, certain influential and upwards looked community members are more able to get themselves special permissions to go around a given rule (Round 17, where a certain alliance had more than the allowed 65 - was it then? - members, while other alliances were told that this is not plausible behavior). It all comes down to what we define "acceptable bias".

While I think the whole mess is ridiculous, there also remains the point Mzyxptlk mentioned that a discrete "cheat" should be punishable if getting nailed as well as a less discrete one. We could also present evidence of past "discrete" avoidings of the alliance limits, where the multihunters have just said there's not enough evidence, otherwise action would be taken, but the thing is, now there seems to be more plausible evidence.



The intuitive choice would be not to recruit more than 70 members (as the tag limit is in place to prevent alliances from recruiting more than 70; hereby I'm not arguing that the rule is good and should be in place, I am arguing that while one is in place it's probably there to be played by).



Yes, I agree on both - a mistake, more on the Descendancy tag part, taking into account that Rob's prominent as being the owner of the Ascendancy group. I'm a little confused and I have really no clue whether the *scendancies share channels or not, and what they share or don't, so I guess it's best if I do not comment on it.
Whether or not the tags share channel is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the behavior from tag to tag. This is why I differentiate between 'getting around the alliance limit' and 'breaking the rules'. If I'm going to have a planet, I'm obviously going to be playing with people in Ascendancy. But my planet this round is not worth having in the Ascendancy tag. I don't build ships, I don't have scans, I don't do covops. I could have been left outside the tags, but why "hide" when I'm not doing anything wrong?

Fact is, every round PAteam look back at how full the tags were, and consider how to set the limit for the next round based on that. Unfortunately this is prone to confirmation bias. They never see overfull tags. This round they can see at least one overfull tag.

But this is entirely orthogonal to the scanning/unfairness issue and ranging towards off-topic. Perhaps we should start a new thread about the alliance limit?
__________________
I always wanted to be a dancer, but I could never get the shit off my shoes
.......
Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 12:30   #43
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester
But my planet this round is not worth having in the Ascendancy tag. I don't build ships, I don't have scans, I don't do covops. I could have been left outside the tags, but why "hide" when I'm not doing anything wrong?
If you are consistently scanning for an alliance other than your own (hereby alliance defined as a tag: I know this can be argued against, but it's the fundamentality behind the tag limits), covert operating for their needs, and so on, it's easy to argue you're a support planet. This has been judged with fleet movement, so it's just a step foward to judge it by scans too. (hereby: you're perhaps not doing it, but it's evident Rob is). Does the conclusion open a can of worms and severely lack common sense? Yes. Have the multihunter descisions in past occasionally severely lacked common sense? Yes. Has this prevented them from being done? No.


Quote:
But this is entirely orthogonal to the scanning/unfairness issue and ranging towards off-topic. Perhaps we should start a new thread about the alliance limit?
I guess you could post a suggestion thread about it. It is, though, probably very widely discussed and the opinions about known already, but a summary and a follow-up probably won't hurt.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 12:32   #44
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
While we can argue about the reasonability and necessity of such alliance limits (an argument where I totally agree with you a lot: they're stupid, and a lot of other rules enforcement pieces are a bit haywired, which I have been arguing for for a while now), isn't an attempt to get around the alliance limit an attempt to break the rules, de facto, giving that the alliance limit is a set rule? To me, Fiery said that the tag scheme is accepted as with the promise that there will be no cooperation between the tags. Like it or not, sitting on a private channel handing out scans to members of an alliance while your own alliance pretty much consumes no scans at all (?) can probably be interpreted as support. As strange as it sounds, but then again there's a lot of room for interpretation in the rules.
I'd rather like some scans please

More generally if we called ascendancy a community or a block or a trans-tag-co-operational-transmogrifier (okay I made that last word up) would this be different? I've said it before and I'll say it again but alliances aren't tags. You can bring up so many problems with the idea that they are it just gets silly.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 12:40   #45
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
More generally if we called ascendancy a community or a block or a trans-tag-co-operational-transmogrifier (okay I made that last word up) would this be different? I've said it before and I'll say it again but alliances aren't tags. You can bring up so many problems with the idea that they are it just gets silly.
As I already said, you can argue that alliances aren't just tags. The fundamental purpose of the tag is to fit an alliance inside it, and accordingly prevent the alliance from expanding beyond given memberlimit. You can explain all you want about how an alliance doesn't equal tag, and vice versa, but the whole support rule system is built around the assumption that an alliance must fit inside a tag, and that an alliance shouldn't consist of more members that fits inside a tag. You can call it stupid, and I will agree with you, but if it wasn't so assumed, but the whole unfair benefit scheme is built on the presumption that a tag represents the alliance, and the members of the alliance should all fit in the tag (hereby: as mentioned alliance limits, not tag limits; hence tag limits limit sizes of alliances). You can say community too, but it makes little difference as a community, alliance, guild, clan, group of players, zoo, squad, team, battlegroup, whatever as a single entity is assumed to follow the alliance limits (hereby: tag limits, to fit the members inside the tag).

I guess if you go wordplay, you could call yourselves a block and hence avoid the whole mess saying it's normal for blocks to cooperate. Trans-tag-co-operational, on the other hand, sounds like a plan to set up support planets, so don't say that either! Again, the five point plan on how to deal with multihunters. You should have just told them that you've blocked with Descendancy in order to attack _VBO_ together, and you'd probably be better off, huh.

ps. No you didn't!
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 12:53   #46
Heartless
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
 
Heartless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
Heartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like himHeartless is an inspiration to us all and we should try to be more like him
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
I guess if you go wordplay, you could call yourselves a block and hence avoid the whole mess saying it's normal for blocks to cooperate.
Actually I explained it to fiery that from the game mechanics point of view ascendancy and descendancy are nothing else than a block - and as such multihunters either close every tagged planet that cooperates with people in other tags or they do not apply the rule at all.

However, Fiery kept on disagreeing, claiming that the two tags were set up to get around the alliance limit. And here is where the confusing part begins: Yes, the two tags were set up to harbour all of our members, but in the end both tags are seperate game entities and as such are allowed the same interactions every other game entities are allowed. If we're now the precedence case for displaying "look, two alliances are not allowed to cooperate at all" then I am fine, but knowing that other alliances can happily cooperate as long as they do not speak about it in public is something that disturbs me. It is simply wrong that you get away with something if you do it secretly.

Additionally, we are reaching a point where one can question whether pa team actually wants planetarion to grow or not. Because with the latest rulings and decisions regarding alliance limit and the support planet rule we start facing the issue that the playerbase will only "heal" itself in terms of replacing player losses in alliances with just enough people to fill up those alliances again.
__________________
Ià! Ià! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
Heartless is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 12:58   #47
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Awesome to find out that word exists. And that's pretty much what I did state pre-round to the multi-hunters, that ascendancy and descendancy would be "blocked" for the forthcoming round. I think generally we're hated enough for even the right words used not to make a difference, although obviously that's just my opinion on the issue and I have little to back it up. If you (general you) want to know what the problem with alliance limits are it's very easy to just look up the definition in a dictionary and work from there.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 13:15   #48
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heartless
And here is where the confusing part begins: Yes, the two tags were set up to harbour all of our members, but in the end both tags are seperate game entities and as such are allowed the same interactions every other game entities are allowed.
Funny, isn't it? I think it is.

Quote:
It is simply wrong that you get away with something if you do it secretly.
And if you get caught, you'll need to fulfill a given criteria to avoid getting punished. That's a bit strange, too!


Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
I think generally we're hated enough for even the right words used not to make a difference, although obviously that's just my opinion on the issue and I have little to back it up.
In that case, you only really have yourselves to blame. Not fulfilling point 2. Your relation to the multihunter in question, or even having a bad enough relation to the multihunter in question to suffice for a negative reaction, you've just shot yourself in the foot. Better luck next time, dude.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 13:23   #49
JonnyBGood
Banned
 
JonnyBGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.JonnyBGood has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
In that case, you only really have yourselves to blame. Not fulfilling point 2. Your relation to the multihunter in question, or even having a bad enough relation to the multihunter in question to suffice for a negative reaction, you've just shot yourself in the foot. Better luck next time, dude.
I'm happy enough with the fact this seems to have brought the issue to a head to be honest. It'd give me far more satisfaction to see a properly growing fully clued-in game for the first time in years than finish first, second or wherever.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
JonnyBGood is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 6 Jul 2007, 14:05   #50
Achilles
Poblacht na hÉireann
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
Achilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldAchilles spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: Is scanning for someone unfair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keizari
In that case, you only really have yourselves to blame. Not fulfilling point 2. Your relation to the multihunter in question, or even having a bad enough relation to the multihunter in question to suffice for a negative reaction, you've just shot yourself in the foot. Better luck next time, dude.
You're right, we could have deceived the multihunters like everyone else is. We could have simply shut the **** up and stayed in our boxes like good little consumer units and we would never have been been closed. But why should we? Why is my alliance not allowed to co-operate with Ascendancy or Descendancy? Are these same restrictions being put on Vision and Jenova? How about if I wanted my alliance to co-operate with F-Crew, would that be ok? If so, why? How is it different? Am I to understand that there will be only 1 Ascendancy-like alliance tolerated in the game? This despite the fact that there is clearly a desire and a demand within the community for more alliances like this.

But PATeam don't care because it interferes with their woefully narrow view of how the community should be categorised and so it has come to this. But that's ok with me, I will not be dictated to, by anyone, about who I can and cannot associate with on irc or on whose behalf I play the game.
Achilles is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018