Rules enforcement

[Tietäjä]

Dear, this must be one of my favourite topics, as I'm ranting about this again. There was a discussion on the other thread regarding whatnots and wherenots of a case where the closed planet felt treaten harshly, and it struck to me as very similar to my own case. Actually, superficially, it is very similar. Where differences arise, is where the two people, one dumb, hasty, and anxious, another cooler, more planning, and with resourceful friends, go different. The first faces the police about his infridgements, and talks hastily and carelessly, and gets closed. The second takes caution, asks advice from his experienced friends, and knows how to sweet talk himself out of it.

Looking at it on perspective.

Originally Posted by Kileman

Dear B|nTaRa,

Please crash into me - I could use the salvage.

Regards,
Kileman

Originally Posted by B|nTaRa

dear sir,

i know im alone attacking u , may i ask a favour from u ? could u please let me land ? please send away ur anti fr , with ur help , i can boost my score ALOT , thats all im asking from u cause i know deep inside ur heart , u r a kind man. i attack u because u can boost my score , atm im just top 700 , i really need this land , which can boost me to top 300 or less , please sir , help me .

Regards,
B|nTaRa

The key parts for those who didn't follow the conversation here.

The basic idea is, that B|nTara suggested Kileman a rules breach in order to gain advantage. On this case, B|nTara was closed. No actual farming happened.

The rule that sealed B|nTara's fate:

[20:32:16] <Fiery> trying to get someone else to cheat is another rule

Originally Posted by arc

I've got some of my co trapped. Mind if you recall your nightmare and Ill offer you a max cap. Thanks.

The key part of the other instance. On this case, neither myself nor arc got closed. I did recall my attack, though, mainly because it was of vamps only, and was set as a fake attack just for giggles, while the whole of my fleet was defending fAst. So, once I received the mail, I went to the multihunters to discuss the incident. I reported the mail, and aptly decided to mail back to arc (after he had landed on me, and I had recalled my fleet, so the situation was at that point resolved).

Originally Posted by Keizari

Ok. When do i get my max cap?

A reply came.

Originally Posted by arc

just send enough fi pod tonite

After this, I asked the multihunter if I am to test if he is actually going further to the rules breach. At this point, arc had already commited a rules breach twice. He could defend himself by stating it's "standard mail tactics" (although B|nTara could equally use this excuse), but it wouldn't resolve why he replied to my bait later on, after the situation had resolved (and yes I am aware of my actions, feel free to close my account).

Originally Posted by EULA

18.6. Miscellaneous cheating
(a) Attempts to encourage other planets to break the rules will be considered
a breach of this agreement

So, the multihunter replied.

[18:59:55] <Keiz`afk> check
[18:59:57] <Keiz`afk> i reported another mail
[19:00:29] <Keiz`afk> do i need to build fi-pods and launch at him for us both to get closed for roid farming or will he get closed?
[19:04:36] <Fiery|cranky> you don't need to do anything else
[19:04:46] <Keiz`afk> k, good, that'd get me on the cheating line too!

This is where the second case ends. No actual farming happened, the situation was resolved as a dead end as was the first case. After I had read about the B|nTara case at work, I was baffled. I decided to purge more into it, and asked the multihunter in question, why, with the given evidence, the descisions ran like they did. The answer was manyfold. I'll clip quotes, as I'm not allowed to turn the thread into an IRC quote drivel. So I was enquirying, why arc wasn't closed, but B|nTara was. It took a little bit of pushing.

[20:34:30] <Fiery> arc gave a passable excuse
[20:35:30] <Fiery> arc was smarter

What's intriguing here, is that B|nTara has "admitted" to breaking this rule, and arc has "pleaded not quilty". It's strange, really, why for the exact same ingame actions two people are judged different. The lesson learned. Whenever you're closed by a multihunter, you should contact someone experienced and someone who has been dealing with the multihunters for long. Your actual rules violations mean nothing, as you might be slashed off purely based on a bad choice of words. It's a strange allegory to real life, or, at least Hollywood films. Never talk to the clever cop without a lawyer, they'll try trip and trick you into a confession that will throw you in, when you could have, by talking to a smarter friend of yours for advice, gotten with a minor warning and a shoo shoo.

Tough luck, B|nTara, next time you have to deal with the multihunters, contact someone, me, for example. I'm okay to give advice on how to deal with them, and I have some experience of it, too. Good one, arc, having wielklem work your case out. Enjoy the last day of the round! Back to my drivel. This is "yet" another view why the rules enforcement squad, the multihunters, really seem to be getting lost out there. I used to think that cheating is something that happens in the game, and that you're judged under your in-game actions, not your verbal talent. Many may come up with lots of examples regarding 1up and eXilition duo that has obviously been treaten different, perhaps due to multihunter bias, perhaps due to incompetence. One multihunter may choose to close a planet on the same grounds another planet goes off with a warning. Really, the punishment regarding cheating shouldn't rely on how dumb you are on an IRC conversation, or do we really need rules lawyers around to help players around with the multihunter tantrums?