The art of agriculture persists

[Valvalis]

depends on your definition of "clean." If the question is do I break the rules? then the answer is a resounding no.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally posted by Axis_WLF
oh rabba knowsships farming is illegal.

But according to Nova's research its really not?

It might be unfair play and dishonorable, but from what i have read on this thread it seems that Nova brings up a good point. I mean looking at this issue legally, Rabba did pay 10 bucks or so for his account. Now if it does not say anything about farming in the EULA than Rabba may have a case.

What do you guys think?

Edit: Petru brought this up earlier in the thread and said that the only reason he didn't get deleted was becuase it wasn't in the EULA...

[Prince]

Originally posted by N0VA
Now, please tell me if these warnings have anything whatsoever to do with Rabbagast's actions? The news scans do not show him taking asteroid donations, they show him stealing Demeters.

Does the extremely vague, undefined quote you so aptly referenced make the average person think "Maybe I shouldn't have my friends send me some Demeters"?

for Future Note read the Announcment forum
as some people still seem unclear that should fix the issue

[Axis_WLF]

please note FRED was deleted for farming and it was not IN THE USER AGREEMENT THEN EITHER. Farming of anykind that is!

[ParraCida]

Two more of those posts and you're right up there with the 'we got hacked' courtesy of fang round 8.

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Prince
for Future Note read the Announcment forum
as some people still seem unclear that should fix the issue

Don't you realize that by making a thread to that effect, you are conceding the point that it was not adequately stated in the first place?

[Alastor]

Well NOVA, if we should follow your explicit way of reading the user agreement, then what about this:

Originally posted by User Agreement
7. We may terminate this Agreement (including your Account) immediately
and without notice if you breach this Agreement or repeatedly infringe
any third party intellectual property rights, or if we are unable to
verify or authenticate any information you provide to us, or upon
gameplay, chat or _any player activity whatsoever_ which is, in our sole
discretion.

So basically, you've agreed that Sim Tech can delete your planet if they want, for any reason whatsoever.

EDIT: And yeah, that means they can delete you for farming/shipfarming using that part of user agreement as reason.

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Axis_WLF
please note FRED was deleted for farming and it was not IN THE USER AGREEMENT THEN EITHER. Farming of anykind that is!

If I recall, Fred was deleted in Round 7 - I really would like to see a copy of that user agreement, because I think farming was declared illegal in it. I know that roid farming was legal in Round 6 - and PA crew made a big push for everyone to be aware that it was illegal in Round 7. I cannot remember the specifics of that push though, so I am not prepared to debate Fred's deletion at this time.

What is important in Rabbagast's case is that this is the first instance (to my knowledge) of a person being punished for ship farming. The action of ship farming has been legal - and the only reference to the illegality of it (prior to Prince's new thread on Announcements) came from a couple lines buried within a creator's log hour.

[Axis_WLF]

THE SAME reason for deleting fred in r7 should still be used to deleted "farmers" today. Thus all farmers should be closed and deleted in the same manner.

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Alastor
Well NOVA, if we should follow your explicit way of reading the user agreement, then what about this:



So basically, you've agreed that Sim Tech can delete your planet if they want, for any reason whatsoever.

EDIT: And yeah, that means they can delete you for farming/shipfarming using that part of user agreement as reason.

You are right Alastor - they can delete your account for any reason whatsoever. Everyone should realize that this is their last resort clause. If they start deleting planets and falling back on this clause, it will drastically hurt their business, as there is no perception of a guarantee that you can keep your account open by following the rules.

I've got an idea. Since everyone hates powerblocking - why don't the creators start deleting a couple of the top galaxies for the reason of bringing fun back to the game. Wouldn't that be great? No more worries of bashing - the top block would all of a sudden have to start fighting to stay afloat. It would really mix this round up for the better.

I hope this example indicates why that clause should only be employed in emergency circumstances. The appropriate action in Rabbagast's case is to give him the slap on the wrist, reopen his account - and let it be known that anyone that engages in actions of that sort will be from here on deleted.

[K-W]

Originally posted by N0VA
You are right Alastor - they can delete your account for any reason whatsoever. Everyone should realize that this is their last resort clause. If they start deleting planets and falling back on this clause, it will drastically hurt their business, as there is no perception of a guarantee that you can keep your account open by following the rules.

I've got an idea. Since everyone hates powerblocking - why don't the creators start deleting a couple of the top galaxies for the reason of bringing fun back to the game. Wouldn't that be great? No more worries of bashing - the top block would all of a sudden have to start fighting to stay afloat. It would really mix this round up for the better.

I hope this example indicates why that clause should only be employed in emergency circumstances. The appropriate action in Rabbagast's case is to give him the slap on the wrist, reopen his account - and let it be known that anyone that engages in actions of that sort will be from here on deleted.

If they declared before the round that powerblocking would be illegal, then Yes it would be fair of them to delete people for powerblocking.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. If rabba didnt know, he should have checked. He decided to flirt with the rules and he pays.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by N0VA
Don't you realize that by making a thread to that effect, you are conceding the point that it was not adequately stated in the first place?

Let's break it down for you, as a player it is your DUTY to be informed about the games rules and regulations. If you pass a red light in the street and you get pulled over you cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.

Perhaps it was not made clear enough for you, though I believe a creators hour log, a posting on the portal and some threads on this forum should have brought enough clarity, but it is a rule that has been in effect since the start of Round 9 and therefore it should have been EVERYONE'S duty to know of it.

And I believe the post on announcementswas made to avoid having similar conversations having to point out the obvious to people with the arguementative skills of a 14 year old.

Also, if you will read the users agreement, you will find a bit that state 'we own your soul, you are our bitch, haha, fk you' or something to those semantics that point out that they could close you and change your planet name to 'I AM FAG' if they would feel like it.

Apart from that I believe it was a good call to close rabba, and I believe so does the largest part (ie 98%) of PA.

[Eol]

7. We may terminate this Agreement (including your Account) immediately and without notice if you breach this Agreement or repeatedly infringe any third party intellectual property rights, or if we are unable to verify or authenticate any information you provide to us, or upon gameplay, chat or any player activity whatsoever which is, in our sole discretion. If we terminate this Agreement under these circumstances, you will lose access to your Account for the balance of any prepaid period without any refund.

Catch all clause.

[N0VA]

Originally posted by K-W
If they declared before the round that powerblocking would be illegal, then Yes it would be fair of them to delete people for powerblocking.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence. If rabba didnt know, he should have checked. He decided to flirt with the rules and he pays.

"3. We may amend this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion. Such
amendments shall be effective whenever we make the notification
available for your review."

Ignorance of the law is a defense. If PA crew makes the law, but does not make the notification available for review, then the amendment is not effective.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by N0VA
I hope this example indicates why that clause should only be employed in emergency circumstances. The appropriate action in Rabbagast's case is to give him the slap on the wrist, reopen his account - and let it be known that anyone that engages in actions of that sort will be from here on deleted.

You do realise petty 'rules lawyer' arguments only make it look worse? Make it look like 'I cheated and knew it but I think I can get away with it by pointing to the rules'?

Fortunately it's only a peon doing it so it's of no real importance, or are you worried this sets a precedent for when your own planet comes up for review?

[Cochese]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Ah how naive, the boy thinks there are top 10 players that have played fair and square

Now lets wait for all the responces of everyone in the past/present top 10 claiming fair play

Moridin won a round fair and square, and was it BiggDogg who finished top10 r3(?) without taking roid donations unlike the others?

My memory is failing though, excuse any mistakes.

Btw, just before you do so: note that I will throw 3 fleet attacking / picking best targets ALWAYS and not defending in your face so be warned.

None of those are against PA rules though, only alliance rules. This discussing pertains to the legality (in PA) of farming, not the legality of 3 fleet attacking, target mongering, and lack of defending, within alliances.

[Event_Horizon]

I hate to say it but technically NOVA has a very good point.

Why didnt the creators just say flat out that ship farming was illegal?

[N0VA]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Let's break it down for you, as a player it is your DUTY to be informed about the games rules and regulations. If you pass a red light in the street and you get pulled over you cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.

Perhaps it was not made clear enough for you, though I believe a creators hour log, a posting on the portal and some threads on this forum should have brought enough clarity, but it is a rule that has been in effect since the start of Round 9 and therefore it should have been EVERYONE'S duty to know of it.

It is your duty as a player to abide by all of the rules you agree to within the bounds of the user agreement. If you reference item three, which I quoted earlier in this thread - PA crew acknowledges that it is their duty to make you aware of the changes.

As for what they made available - the only reference to ship farming being illegal are those couple of lines in one creator's hour. Do you honestly expect every player to read every question asked in every creator's hour and be accountable for them?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Event_Horizon
I hate to say it but technically NOVA has a very good point.

He has no point whatsoever on a legal basis. The T&Cs would stand up in any UK court (no other jurisdiction applies).

Why didnt the creators just say flat out that ship farming was illegal?

They did, in CH.

[Valvalis]

I applaud you people that show patience enough to continue arguing with N0va...

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by N0VA
As for what they made available - the only reference to ship farming being illegal are those couple of lines in one creator's hour. Do you honestly expect every player to read every question asked in every creator's hour and be accountable for them?

I believe it is reasonable to expect an alliance HC (especially a high profile one) to be aware of what happens in creators hour, yes.

I know for a fact that vortex were all told about it, are we more organised than you big alliances?

[Event_Horizon]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
[b]He has no point whatsoever on a legal basis. The T&Cs would stand up in any UK court (no other jurisdiction applies).

They did, in CH.

Well as Nova quoted earlier when they make the ammendment it is effective when it is brought forward for us to review. Two lines hidden in a creators hour log, I dont think would be considered, 'brought forward for review'.

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
You do realise petty 'rules lawyer' arguments only make it look worse? Make it look like 'I cheated and knew it but I think I can get away with it by pointing to the rules'?

Fortunately it's only a peon doing it so it's of no real importance, or are you worried this sets a precedent for when your own planet comes up for review?

I know that I am angering a lot of people with my approaches on this thread - but you can at least try to avoid personal attacks against me.

Go ahead and review my planet - delete it if you find evidence of wrongdoing - or go ahead and delete it under the "we reserve the right to delete you for any reason such as criticizing our methods of rule (or lack thereof) enforcement".

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by N0VA


It is your duty as a player to abide by all of the rules you agree to within the bounds of the user agreement. If you reference item three, which I quoted earlier in this thread - PA crew acknowledges that it is their duty to make you aware of the changes.

As for what they made available - the only reference to ship farming being illegal are those couple of lines in one creator's hour. Do you honestly expect every player to read every question asked in every creator's hour and be accountable for them? [/b]

It was on the portal - Creators Hour - Forums.

Where ELSE do you want it?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by N0VA
I know that I am angering a lot of people with my approaches on this thread - but you can at least try to avoid personal attacks against me.

Ok, I'll admit it was a cheap shot but it was one tht was BEGGING to be made.

Go ahead and review my planet - delete it if you find evidence of wrongdoing -

I leave that to those with resources to spend on news scans

or go ahead and delete it under the "we reserve the right to delete you for any reason such as criticizing our methods of rule (or lack thereof) enforcement".

This isn't slashdot you know, the mass conspiracy 'BUT WHAT IF THEY DO!' argument needs a crowd to go along with it otherwise it just makes you look paranoid.

I know my planet is 100% clean and am not even slightly worried about it getting deleted for ANY reason whatsoever, what I do want though is for the creators to have the absolute right to delete any planet that is NOT 100% clean. Even if that means by the end of the round it's me v you because the entire universe has been caught breaking the rules.

My point is, he broke the rules, we all knew they were the rules this round (please note that not a single person today has said 'Ship farming is illegal? Since when?' and I was in #pa when it all kicked off), and now he's closed pending deletion. Any other arguments are superfluous.

[lokken]

Originally posted by N0VA
"3. We may amend this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion. Such
amendments shall be effective whenever we make the notification
available for your review."

Ignorance of the law is a defense. If PA crew makes the law, but does not make the notification available for review, then the amendment is not effective.

By issuing the ruling in a public creators hour at the beginning of the round, the creators served 'reasonable notice' of the rule, it has been common knowledge among experienced players (of which Rabba would be among) that the activity has been frowned upon by the creators, and that they have never signalled a change against that policy. There is certainly no ignorance, and it would be reasonable to expect the policy to be reviewed once a round, which it has done by restating its policy in the creators hour. As long as the situation is fully considered (not that there is much to consider, the PA crew can do what they wish according to the user agreement), any decision of the PA crew would stand.

It is not the responsibility of the creators to make sure everyone knows the rules; only to take reasonable stepts to make sure everyone knows; it would be ridiculous otherwise, the creators would have to chase up every player despite making public announcements. The only possible defence could be insanity. However, the fact that he's been playing a #1 planet and orchestrating some kind of shady campaign to get there wouldn't suggest such a defence being valid.

An easier way to solve this problem in the future and preventing those of a legal mind trying to break down all this is to simply have a copy of basic rules linked to the menubar ingame.

[K-W]

Originally posted by N0VA
"3. We may amend this Agreement at any time in our sole discretion. Such
amendments shall be effective whenever we make the notification
available for your review."

Ignorance of the law is a defense. If PA crew makes the law, but does not make the notification available for review, then the amendment is not effective.

They did make it available in CH>

[Cochese]

Originally posted by lokken

An easier way to solve this problem in the future and preventing those of a legal mind trying to break down all this is to simply have a copy of basic rules linked to the menubar ingame.

That's a great idea.

I wrote up something along those lines for my alliance before ticks started, spelling it out in plain words (not legal jargan)

[N0VA]

Originally posted by ParraCida
It was on the portal - Creators Hour - Forums.

Where ELSE do you want it?

To say that it is on the Portal is valid, since the logs of all Creators Hours are on the Portal. To say that it is in Creators Hour is also valid - for reasons already covered. As for the forums though, this is where I disagree. Doing a search for "ship farming" did not yield any such results.

You ask where else I would like it - how about in a place that everyone actually reads .... like in the overview "Ship Farming is now illegal. Read this linked creator's hour for more info". How about in the User Agreement "Here are the actions that we will delete planets for - and any minor variances of them"? How about on the Announcements page of the Forums?

None of those options were employed. So now this entire issue comes down to the matter of, do you think that one question/answer in one of the Creator's Hours fulfills the obligation that they took upon themselves with the User Agreement?

I would bet that the majority of the universe that knew ship farming to be illegal only knew that because of what a friend or alliance mate told them. How many times have our alliance mates or friends told us something about the rules that turned out to be not entirely true? I seem to recall a big problem with regards to overburn last round.

PA Crew had a responsibility to let everyone know what constituted grounds for deletion. Since there is even grounds for discussion of this point, it should be proof enough that they did not do so. And Prince's thread offers further proof of this point.

[laputa]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
He has no point whatsoever on a legal basis. The T&Cs would stand up in any UK court (no other jurisdiction applies).

LOL. If you could predict the ruling of every UK court you'd probably be a billionaire by now.

Anyways, Nova has a point. Actually a very important one. He once more showed that the creators never made the step from a free game to a p2p-system.
Not knowing their own user agreement but listening to the AD mob yelling 'witch! witch!' is very unprofessional. Doesn't at least Jolt have anyone who could help you a little bit with business matters?

[lokken]

Originally posted by laputa
LOL. If you could predict the ruling of every UK court you'd probably be a billionaire by now.

Anyways, Nova has a point. Actually a very important one. He once more showed that the creators never made the step from a free game to a p2p-system.
Not knowing their own user agreement but listening to the AD mob yelling 'witch! witch!' is very unprofessional. Doesn't at least Jolt have anyone who could help you a little bit with business matters?

You can guess which way they will go to a reasonable accuracy. Ignorance is no defence in UK law, especially if a body has taken reasonable steps to make people aware of a ruling.

[laputa]

Originally posted by lokken
You can guess which way they will go to a reasonable accuracy. Ignorance is no defence in UK law, especially if a body has taken reasonable steps to make people aware of a ruling.

My comment was rather aimed at the other user's post trying to predict a court ruling than the actual 'case'.

You don't seem to know much about legal matters so I won't start a discussion with you.

[Perfection]

Firstly, im not condoning Rabbas actions, i merely wish to debate the legality of the EULA.

Originally posted by ParraCida
Let's break it down for you, as a player it is your DUTY to be informed about the games rules and regulations. If you pass a red light in the street and you get pulled over you cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.

That is because running a red light, in some countries, is what is known as a 'strict liability' offence. Meaning that intention is irrelevant. Other types of offences which fall into this are non-payment of parking tickets and tax offences. The law does indeed provide the defence of 'ignorance' in the great majority of cases, and certainly in any crime which may carry a custodial sentence. It exists in a variety of ways, the reasonable man test, the dishonesty test, recklessness tests. I wouldnt expect you to know any of these, they are all however termed under 'Mens Rea' meaning guilty mind.

Originally posted by Eol
Catch all clause.

Such clauses are so easily negotiated its untrue, whether by statute or the 'contra proferentum' rule. Any clause which doesnt have a specific terminology will be disregarded by any good lawyer as being non-applicable. If you want greater detail, i will provide it - or you could just believe me

Originally posted by lokken
By issuing the ruling in a public creators hour at the beginning of the round, the creators served 'reasonable notice' of the rule, it has been common knowledge among experienced players (of which Rabba would be among) that the activity has been frowned upon by the creators, and that they have never signalled a change against that policy. There is certainly no ignorance, and it would be reasonable to expect the policy to be reviewed once a round, which it has done by restating its policy in the creators hour. As long as the situation is fully considered (not that there is much to consider, the PA crew can do what they wish according to the user agreement), any decision of the PA crew would stand.

It is not the responsibility of the creators to make sure everyone knows the rules; only to take reasonable stepts to make sure everyone knows; it would be ridiculous otherwise, the creators would have to chase up every player despite making public announcements. The only possible defence could be insanity. However, the fact that he's been playing a #1 planet and orchestrating some kind of shady campaign to get there wouldn't suggest such a defence being valid.

An easier way to solve this problem in the future and preventing those of a legal mind trying to break down all this is to simply have a copy of basic rules linked to the menubar ingame.

With regards Paragraph 1, i would argue the contrary. Creators hour normally consists of 500 people, while the player base is made up of 4500. Clearly there is a discrepancy there.

With regards Para 2, i think your analysis is wrong again. The creators are indeed only burdened with taking reasonable steps to notify everyone. But the answering of 1 question, which incidently could be disregarded as either being a direct reply to 1 person not the group (unlikely but arguable) or either that it showed no initiative on the behalf of the creators (more likely), should not amount to reasonabe steps.

With regards Para 3, yes.

Originally posted by laputa
My comment was rather aimed at the other user's post trying to predict a court ruling than the actual 'case'.

You don't seem to know much about legal matters so I won't start a discussion with you.

From reading his post (quoted above) id say he does. Further, as judges are ex-lawyers it is completely logical that a current lawyer could predict their views. In fact, anyone with a logical mind and a smattering of relevant precedent (past cases on the subject) can surely make an educated guess at the least.

[K-W]

Maybe we could all just not cheat instead of trying to find a loophole in the rules?

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by K-W
Maybe we could all just not cheat instead of trying to find a loophole in the rules?

Way to beg the question Germania. It has nothing to do with finding and exploiting loopholes. It has everything to do with whether or not we should hold someone culpable for a rules change that runs contrary to precedent, and wasn't actually deemed worthy of inclusion in the manual or the EULA.

[Prince]

Originally posted by N0VA
Don't you realize that by making a thread to that effect, you are conceding the point that it was not adequately stated in the first place?

No
I'm stateing that apprently some people seem incapable of knowing the rules so I pointed them out in big shinny letters, (Yes just woke up).

[-CP-]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
You do realise petty 'rules lawyer' arguments only make it look worse? Make it look like 'I cheated and knew it but I think I can get away with it by pointing to the rules'?

Fortunately it's only a peon doing it so it's of no real importance, or are you worried this sets a precedent for when your own planet comes up for review?

And who are you to talk about peons Gayle?

[-CP-]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
[b]Ok, I'll admit it was a cheap shot but it was one tht was BEGGING to be made.
[b]
I leave that to those with resources to spend on news scans


I know my planet is 100% clean and am not even slightly worried about it getting deleted for ANY reason whatsoever, what I do want though is for the creators to have the absolute right to delete any planet that is NOT 100% clean. Even if that means by the end of the round it's me v you because the entire universe has been caught breaking the rules.

My point is, he broke the rules, we all knew they were the rules this round (please note that not a single person today has said 'Ship farming is illegal? Since when?' and I was in #pa when it all kicked off), and now he's closed pending deletion. Any other arguments are superfluous.

You may state your oppinion as much as you like, it will still never be more then your oppinion. That your planet is clean is completely irrelevant for this discussion and as far as I know, noone has stated otherwise. Fact is that as long as this is a fairly open forum and you have the right to state your oppinion, I think it is only right that others can too. On a personal note, I have to say that you may be the most annoying person on this forum to me.. and that says a lot..

Now.. I won't go into the argument wether Rabba broke the rules or not, cause frankly I don't have a clue, but I would like to say that they should definately add the ship farming rule to the next useragreement so this is completely clear to absolutely everyone..

Also I would like to add that I haven't seen rabba arguing in here so why make this into a fight between "cheaters" and no cheaters? As far as I can tell it is only a discussion of wether it has been clearly stated that ship farming is illegal..

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Prince
No
I'm stateing that apprently some people seem incapable of knowing the rules so I pointed them out in big shinny letters, (Yes just woke up).

How is it expected for people to know the rules if they are not expressly stated to the user base?

I did not know that ship farming was illegal until after Rabba was closed. I joined the round late, but I read the agreement, read the manual, and even asked my friends about what the new changes to the round were. The ones that I was told: Overburn is gone and Parallel ETA reduction. Now, anyone that says I did not make a more than adequate effort to find out the rules of the game would be flat out wrong - yet I had no clue that ship farming was illegal, and more importantly, I had no reason to think it was, or any reason to inquire about its legality.

You may call this a technicality, or petty rules lawyering - but I do not think I am the only one that was unaware of that rules change ... and I don't think Rabba was the only other person in that same position.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by N0VA
How is it expected for people to know the rules if they are not expressly stated to the user base?

I did not know that ship farming was illegal until after Rabba was closed.

it was on your OVERVIEW for you to read. but some ppl obviously only use their milscreen and the resources screen of their farm planet

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by N0VA
How is it expected for people to know the rules if they are not expressly stated to the user base?

I did not know that ship farming was illegal until after Rabba was closed. I joined the round late, but I read the agreement, read the manual, and even asked my friends about what the new changes to the round were. The ones that I was told: Overburn is gone and Parallel ETA reduction. Now, anyone that says I did not make a more than adequate effort to find out the rules of the game would be flat out wrong - yet I had no clue that ship farming was illegal, and more importantly, I had no reason to think it was, or any reason to inquire about its legality.

You may call this a technicality, or petty rules lawyering - but I do not think I am the only one that was unaware of that rules change ... and I don't think Rabba was the only other person in that same position.

Key difference is that you aren't Rabba. You said you joined the round late - Rabba had been in preperation for the round a good month or so before signups even opened. I just don't understand how he couldn't have known for someone in his position.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Key difference is that you aren't Rabba. You said you joined the round late - Rabba had been in preperation for the round a good month or so before signups even opened. I just don't understand how he couldn't have known for someone in his position.

I don't see how this is so hard to believe. The vast majority of the players don't read CH, which means he would have had to have heard of the change by word of mouth, the forums, or the portal. No one reads the portal, and afaik, Rabba doesn't much read the forums. That leaves word of mouth. Once you bring it down to that, it seems pretty feasable that he might have simply asked someone to summarize what was said in CH, and that person forgot to mention the ship-farming ban, or didn't think it was worth mentioning. Since it had been legal in the last round, why would he think to ask them about it specifically?

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
I don't see how this is so hard to believe. The vast majority of the players don't read CH, which means he would have had to have heard of the change by word of mouth, the forums, or the portal.

to those thinking about farming - remember the great eye is ever watchful

...or something like that was on the overview. that should be enough to make everyone CURIOUS, to give everyone time to INFORM themselves, to STOP their farming actions and to eventually REPORT themselves to the creators.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
...or something like that was on the overview. that should be enough to make everyone CURIOUS, to give everyone time to INFORM themselves, to STOP their farming actions and to eventually REPORT themselves to the creators.

You perhaps don't understand that the term "farming" has referring to roid farming since around r4. "ship farming" didn't even really exist until at least r6, and arguably r7. Since common usage of "farming" refers to "roid farming" which has been illegal since r7, and not to "ship farming" which was only quietly made illegal in r9, if I saw that overview, I would assume that it refers to "roid farming" as common sense indicates.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
I don't see how this is so hard to believe. The vast majority of the players don't read CH, which means he would have had to have heard of the change by word of mouth, the forums, or the portal. No one reads the portal, and afaik, Rabba doesn't much read the forums. That leaves word of mouth. Once you bring it down to that, it seems pretty feasable that he might have simply asked someone to summarize what was said in CH, and that person forgot to mention the ship-farming ban, or didn't think it was worth mentioning. Since it had been legal in the last round, why would he think to ask them about it specifically?

Ignorance is never an argument. Learn to read.

I am getting a bit annoyed by your blatant stupidity. You are one of those examples that argue 'pro arbortion' and to be exact 'reflective abortion', like 21 years after their birth still aborting since it isn't really what you wanted.

[N0VA]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
...or something like that was on the overview. that should be enough to make everyone CURIOUS, to give everyone time to INFORM themselves, to STOP their farming actions and to eventually REPORT themselves to the creators.

I ask you to read the words you are quoting and actually contemplate about what they mean:

"to those thinking about farming - remember the great eye is ever watchful"

Farming in Planetarion has _always_ been used to describe the unchallenged acquisition of asteroids by attacking friends and alliance mates. When "Farming" was declared illegal in Round 7, ship farming was still allowed - hence establishing a precedence that Farming and Ship Farming are two separate actions. Because of this, the statement in the overview does not give anyone a reason to consider Ship Farming as an action under watch.

Now, if the creator's are willing to make comments about actions they are watching out for, why could they have not worded it such as "to those thinking about farming either ships or asteroids - remember the great eye is ever watchful". By adding those four little words, there would have been no debate about this whatsoever.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
Ignorance is never an argument. Learn to read.

I am getting a bit annoyed by your blatant stupidity. You are one of those examples that argue 'pro arbortion' and to be exact 'reflective abortion', like 21 years after their birth still aborting since it isn't really what you wanted.

Aristotle would disagree strongly with you about ignorance never being an argument.

Learn to think.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
Aristotle would disagree strongly with you about ignorance never being an argument.

Learn to think.

First of all, although it is indeed the English 'spelling' of his name, it is orginally 'Aristoteles', something which annoys me bigtime.

Second of all, ignorance in these cases isn't an argument. Learn to give up buddy.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
First of all, although it is indeed the English 'spelling' of his name, it is orginally 'Aristoteles', something which annoys me bigtime.

Second of all, ignorance in these cases isn't an argument. Learn to give up buddy.

Apparently you didn't take my advice. Ignorance is an excuse as long as no "reasonable" effort to educate the PA-players concerning the rules change was made. If no reasonable effort is made, they can't change the EULA, buddy. If you think that saying something to 500 people in CH, when the game has 4500 players is reasonable, I shudder to think of what you find unreasonable.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
Apparently you didn't take my advice. Ignorance is an excuse as long as no "reasonable" effort to educate the PA-players concerning the rules change was made. If no reasonable effort is made, they can't change the EULA, buddy. If you think that saying something to 500 people in CH, when the game has 4500 players is reasonable, I shudder to think of what you find unreasonable.

Talk to the hand, 'cause the face ain't listening.