Closed by the law or by the mass??

[cypher]

Originally posted by cbk100
Just because he knew it was "illegal" doesn't set up a law. The fact that the law was not there gave a hole in the manual and rabba went trough that hole. If I had seen it earlier than today I'm sure that I would have adviced other ppl to take it too.

And still another person who manage to come to the conclusion that its legal to close the account....but hey were are your proof??

cbk

if you want facts the manual says creators can close over anything.

so hey who needs further proof?

and as i stated he knew it was illegal (else he would not have resigned as HC either) it is stated creators can close when they want and it has been stated farming is illegal and so is shipfarming.

now as for your posts.. just read and think and you won't have to post again ty

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by glaci3r
Loss of resources, roids, or ships? I agree that ship-farming is a less damaging sort of action... i had this nice argument bout your analysis of it being a zero-sum game, but it all revolved around the two player interactions. Wasn't as well supported as i thought.

Strictly speaking, I can't call it a zero-sum game. My game-theory prof would have a fit, so thanks for calling me on it....but I think you get my point if I DO call it that. What should the punishment be? I'm not sure, but I do think that deletion seems a bit severe, given the drastically different nature of the offense.

[Zh|l]

Farming is illegal. Rabba farmed. He got caught. He is now closed. I fail to see why there is so much fuss about it. Its not like he can defend his actions - he knew what he was doing and admitted it. (Although claiming it wasnt stated as illegal).

As for his current position - it was said he had resigned to other WEET HC. If WP feel the need to change this, thats their decision - not mine. Rabba may have been rash and emotionally which has triggered a "go back" move to stop any resignation.

Regardless of if he is finally deleted or not (i.e not enough evidence), it will be extremely hard for him to regain a good image for himself and WP.

Although by all common sense he should save WP the trouble of the bad PR by resigning, he has done alot for WP and it is his "home" thus its entirely understandable he hasnt performed his execution yet

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Farming is illegal. Rabba farmed. He got caught. He is now closed. I fail to see why there is so much fuss about it. Its not like he can defend his actions - he knew what he was doing and admitted it. (Although claiming it wasnt stated as illegal).

As for his current position - it was said he had resigned to other WEET HC. If WP feel the need to change this, thats their decision - not mine. Rabba may have been rash and emotionally which has triggered a "go back" move to stop any resignation.

Regardless of if he is finally deleted or not (i.e not enough evidence), it will be extremely hard for him to regain a good image for himself and WP.

Although by all common sense he should save WP the trouble of the bad PR by resigning, he has done alot for WP and it is his "home" thus its entirely understandable he hasnt performed his execution yet

Perhaps you have info that I don't, but I haven't seen him admit to doing it, or admit to knowing that it was illegal. Also, the only thing I've seen to indicate that he resigned were statements by people in Ely, statements which have been refuted by those in WP. If he manages to get a just punishment, instead of deletion, I think his image will come out well enough. If he remains deleted, you are of course, quite right about that image.

[Petru]

The point that's hard to get by for me is not that he was closed even though the EULA doesn't mention farming.

It's that he was closed even though the EULA doesn't mention farming, when the EULA not mentioning farming was the prime reason for another galaxy not being closed.

So on day one they say "EULA doesnt say it, so we can't close for farming" then now it's "EULA doesn't say it, but even though we let some people off before we're going to close for it now".

[storeslem]

Who cares if it's in the EULA, when the creators can close him for no reason whatsoever ?

GJ Prince

[Zh|l]

Originally posted by Petru
The point that's hard to get by for me is not that he was closed even though the EULA doesn't mention farming.

It's that he was closed even though the EULA doesn't mention farming, when the EULA not mentioning farming was the prime reason for another galaxy not being closed.

So on day one they say "EULA doesnt say it, so we can't close for farming" then now it's "EULA doesn't say it, but even though we let some people off before we're going to close for it now".

hehe

I wonder who that could be.

PS: Get online fs

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Petru
The point that's hard to get by for me is not that he was closed even though the EULA doesn't mention farming.

for a very long time the in game MOTD stated that farming is illegal. "great eye ever watchful blah blah blah"

so plz stop defending this cheater and get on with the game

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by cbk100
Look at me, not hindered by common sense, the ability to read, and only using the arguments pro, ignoring the cons.

You just became the personification of the word thick.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
for a very long time the in game MOTD stated that farming is illegal. "great eye ever watchful blah blah blah"

so plz stop defending this cheater and get on with the game

Read the post thicko, he meant to say that the reason that farming wasn't in the EULA was the reason that 48:4 wasn't closed and deleted.

[STONEKIN]

he knew it was cheating come on. and yes there is a gain when u ship farm. when u defend u get 1/4 of the resources from the ships you lose. and since he was having his buddies ''give him a little boost'' i say delete the cheat.













remeber ''dont hate the game hate the player''



STONEKIN

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Petru
The point that's hard to get by for me is not that he was closed even though the EULA doesn't mention farming.

It's that he was closed even though the EULA doesn't mention farming, when the EULA not mentioning farming was the prime reason for another galaxy not being closed.

So on day one they say "EULA doesnt say it, so we can't close for farming" then now it's "EULA doesn't say it, but even though we let some people off before we're going to close for it now".

Yes, consistency of rules enforcement is what makes a game worth playing.

Originally posted by storeslem
Who cares if it's in the EULA, when the creators can close him for no reason whatsoever ?
GJ Prince

Let's take an analogy to make this understandable to you. You and I play chess competitively. One day, the chess guru's decide that en passent is going to be illegal from now on. But instead of posting this rules change in any official, well read-places (for instance in a handout given to all players at the tournament), they just tell it to SOME of the competitors that are able to attend a pre-tournament meeting.

The enforcement of the rule, which runs contrary to standard chess, is subject to quite a bit of criticism if not all the players are aware of it, I think you'll agree. And just because there is a clause in the rules of the tournament that allows the judges to disqualify players for any reason (i.e. clause 7 of the EULA) doesn't mean that they are right to do so, if the "grounds" for disqualification is that the player broke this new "rule."

Furthermore, as Petru pointed out, this becomes more problematic if SOME players are disqualified for making illegal en passent moves while others are allowed to continue with only a warning.

Any questions?

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
Read the post thicko, he meant to say that the reason that farming wasn't in the EULA was the reason that 48:4 wasn't closed and deleted.

sorry but im not "in the know"

and btw: read the bit i quoted

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by at0mic.c0w
sorry but im not "in the know"

and btw: read the bit i quoted

yes, it was out of context.

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
Perhaps you have info that I don't, but I haven't seen him admit to doing it, or admit to knowing that it was illegal. Also, the only thing I've seen to indicate that he resigned were statements by people in Ely, statements which have been refuted by those in WP. If he manages to get a just punishment, instead of deletion, I think his image will come out well enough. If he remains deleted, you are of course, quite right about that image.

He did tell the rest of WEET HC that he had resigned, so to the best of my knowledge that remains true. I don't think it can be taken as an admission of guilt though, more an expression of frustration and disappointment.

The arguments about the rights and wrongs of the case have already been made quite forcefully by various people in this thread. I think that the majority of people, and the creators, agree that ship-farming gives an unfair advantage to those who do it, and should be a punishable offence. That's my view as well - I'm Zik and I have a lot of trouble trying to cap the right ships. Sometimes I try hitting bad targets just so I can cap ships from them. There is an obvious advantage to farming ships, as it removes a tactical concern that other 'fair-playing' Zik players have to worry about.

However, if something is going to be made illegal then it is - in my opinion - perfectly reasonable to expect the creators to make information about this rule easily available to all players. I am not making any kind of legal argument because I don't feel that legal arguments are relevant in this case, this is a game and not a court of law. This is the information age, and we're talking about an online browser-based game here - the suggestion that a few obscure notes posted unofficially on the forums, and a creators hour log should constitute notification of a rule change seems to be an absurd view to me.

There are plenty of ways that the creators could have informed all of the players - the manual, the EULA and game rules, the overview Message of the Day are all things that players should be expected to read. If they violate something stated in any of these, then they deserve whatever punishment the creators decide is suitable for their offence. Violating a rule which was only ever stated a couple of times, in obscure places which the majority of players will never read seems to be much less of a clear-cut case.

Yeah, PA's "moral majority" may well feel that ship farming is wrong and that ship farmers deserve deletion. I agree with them on that. But not everyone agrees, and I don't think it's fair to expect all players to conform to certain rules if those rules are not presented to them. The argument that the CH logs should constitute fair warning doesn't hold imo. In order to play PA, you have to agree to a EULA and game rules, and before your account is activated you also receive two informational e-mails. Those present the creators with plenty of opportunity to make sure all players are aware of the rules. Yes, they don't legally have to, but I think it's a fair expectation in an online game where contacting all of the players is so trivially easy.

So, should he be re-opened? My personal feeling is that I deplore cheating (and I consider ship-farming to be cheating) and I would quite happily see every ship-farmer deleted. However, given the oversight by the creators in not posting the rules in a fair manner, I think there is a strong case for reopening here. Yes, it's ****ed up, and the existing ship-farming done by various players has probably given them an unfair advantage, but I think that an amnesty on ship-farming is the only really fair conclusion. The creators should, of course, take measures to make sure everyone is properly informed of the ship-farming rule from this day on, and enforce it rigorously. But for all past cases (such as this), there is just too much doubt over whether the players really were informed about the rules. Just try putting yourself in the same position - you've followed the rules to the best of your ability, and now find yourself closed for a rule that you can't find stated anywhere. It's not fair, and the creators should acknowledge this.

[N0VA]

By this point, I think the argument that the Creators did not properly notify the user base has been concisely expressed and the issue then is whether or not Rabbagast falls into the category of those that knew the change, or those that did not.

The best evidence for this is that Rabba is a good player, a smart player, and most importantly - an experienced player.

Throughout the past rounds, it has become obvious to all competitive players that the planets and galaxies near the top of the universe are closely scrutinized for cheating - both by the creators and the community as a whole.

Because of this, top players and alliances that resort to cheating strive to do it in a "careful" manner. For example, I have my roid heavy and fleet light friend attack me, launch a retaliatory strike against him, and have my galaxy mates adequately cover my planet. I then have created the appearance that my farming was actually legitimate.

It gets even easier to create these ruses with ship farming. Let's say I am a top Zikonian planet and have a mid-sized Terran that is willing to send me his Destroyers. I have him attack a different friend of mine that has absolutely no ships that can handle destroyers (a rather legitimate attack under the examination of news and military scans). I then send enough Rogues in to cap all of the Destroyers. A cut and dry case of farming, but almost impossible to prove - especially if I argue that I always devote a fleet slot to defending against destroyers, just in case the attacker is dumb enough to land.

Now let's look at Rabba's case. There was no elaborate ruse. It was a cut and dry 50 Demeters sent at his planet, he moved his kill fleet, and stole the Demeters. If he knew that ship farming was illegal, why on Earth would he risk his #1 planet - knowing that top players are under high degrees of scrutiny?

[storeslem]

Originally posted by Obfuscator

Let's take an analogy to make this understandable to you. You and I play chess competitively. One day, the chess guru's decide that en passent is going to be illegal from now on. But instead of posting this rules change in any official, well read-places (for instance in a handout given to all players at the tournament), they just tell it to SOME of the competitors that are able to attend a pre-tournament meeting.

The enforcement of the rule, which runs contrary to standard chess, is subject to quite a bit of criticism if not all the players are aware of it, I think you'll agree. And just because there is a clause in the rules of the tournament that allows the judges to disqualify players for any reason (i.e. clause 7 of the EULA) doesn't mean that they are right to do so, if the "grounds" for disqualification is that the player broke this new "rule."

It's not like Rabba, or anyone else, didn't know farming was illegal.

You are arguing against common sense, and that doesn't exactly make you look smart. Retard.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by storeslem
It's not like Rabba, or anyone else, didn't know farming was illegal.

You are arguing against common sense, and that doesn't exactly make you look smart. Retard.

How do you know Rabba knew it was illegal?

Oh, that's right, you don't.

Retard.

[storeslem]

Have you seen any people on the boards claiming they did NOT know farming was illegal? It being written on everyones overview and all...


edit:
Besides, I would think with that coverall clausule, everyone who were unsure about the rules would try to get updated asap. Or if they didn't, at least they knew they were running the risk of being closed any moment.

[TrinTara]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
What precedent, pray tell? And don't spout any roid farming precedent, because we both know that doesn't hold up. Ship farming hasn't been illegal til r9, so unless someone else has been deleted for ship farming this round, there is no precedent. [/end argument]

Roid farming is the perfect precedent to spout actually. Seems cbk could not find a specific reference to that either, yet people have been deleted for it.

In making that comment I do not concede that the rules are not clear, especially to experienced players. I am simply pointint out to you how the concept of precedent works.

Trin

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Rumad
In the uk ignorance is not a valid argument.

And according to the EULA, it is, if the creators haven't given proper notification to the players pertaining to changes to the EULA, ie the rules. Your point Rumad?

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by TrinTara
Roid farming is the perfect precedent to spout actually. Seems cbk could not find a specific reference to that either, yet people have been deleted for it.

In making that comment I do not concede that the rules are not clear, especially to experienced players. I am simply pointint out to you how the concept of precedent works.

Trin

Precedent only applies if the two cases are relevantly similar. Considering the extremely different natures of the two types of farming, I don't believe that this precedent DOES apply.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Rumad
You can make analogous comparisons all you want, but if they have communicated the urle and majority of ppl are aware (not the few), then this is a totally legal situation.

After the amount of closures round 7 for farming I don’t see how anyone can use this as an argument.

Delete ALL cheats..

I added some italics to your post. The 'if' is crucial, and I don't think you can prove that most players were aware of the change in rules. In fact, most rationale arguments I've seen so far indicate that the methods of notification of the rules change employed by the creators were woefully inadequate.

The massive amounts of players closed in r7 were closed for ROID FARMING, a somewhat different matter in terms of game rules, from SHIP FARMING.

[Lanceman]

Originally posted by N0VA
[...]
Now let's look at Rabba's case. There was no elaborate ruse. It was a cut and dry 50 Demeters sent at his planet, he moved his kill fleet, and stole the Demeters. If he knew that ship farming was illegal, why on Earth would he risk his #1 planet - knowing that top players are under high degrees of scrutiny?

Now here things get interesting.
The fact he should have known is quite common sense.
But what about his special position (no1).
We all know no1 spots are specially treated by the community and the newbie players.
Newbie players tend to send some ships there just for the hell of it.
If that isn't handled intentionally between the no1 spot-owner and the sender (this applies onlyif no1 is Zik) then it will be hard to proove the opposite. The point is: why should he NOT get those ships he is been given.
One thing is for sure, that it gets very suspicious if the same planets send more than once after loosing their ships at that place.
What would be correct to dofor him : if a newbie sends 100 demeters only, leave an amount of kill ships to kill 50 and steal ships to steal 50 of them, or only kill fleet to destroy all and so having the feeling not to be accused of farming?
This, of course, reduces the freedom of Zik players.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Rumad
UK common law overides all laws of tort. And ignorance is no excuse under UK law.

To be honest Rumad, this isn't really a legal issue anyway. It's not like Rabba is going to sue Jolt. What it IS, is a matter of principle. Here on AD everyone is crying for blood because they assume that it was obvious to everyone that ship farming was illegal. What I'm saying is that the creators did a very poor job of making that rule change well known, and so while it is not illegal for them to close his account (after all, as so many people have pointed out, they can always appeal to clause 7 of the EULA anyway), but that it is WRONG to delete him.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Rumad
Actually i believe the last message of the day said you shoudln't try FARMING, no differentiation between roid or ship.

UK law has several well documented precedents about ignorance being no excuse if an attempt to communicate with the party has been attempted.

There is no argument here, I don't really know how its got to 3 pages.

Simply rabba decided to push the rules, it was classed as cheating. He should be deleted.

If you don't understand that common parlance in PA has always denoted "farming" as "roid farming" then I don't think I can continue this discussion with you.

No reasonable attempt was made by PA-crew to notify the players of this rule change. They had to edit the manual anyway to change the stats. They could have easily added something in noting that ship farming was now also banned. I may not know UK law, but I am certain that the "attempts to communicate" you speak of would only apply to REASONABLE attempts. Attempts that do not reach the entire player-base would hardly qualify as that.

[Cicada]

Originally posted by cbk100
ahhh so you really are stupit enough to expect that n00b who just joined this game without having friends here and without joining IRC or something like that has digged trough the mases of written stuff beside the manual to find out that farming is illegal...

IT WAS ON THE MESSAGE OF THE DAY FOR LIKE 2 WEEKS YOU **** WIT

[TrinTara]

Originally posted by Obfuscator
Precedent only applies if the two cases are relevantly similar. Considering the extremely different natures of the two types of farming, I don't believe that this precedent DOES apply.

The precedent is persuasive not necessarily binding, but you are looking at the facts not the ruling. It is the circumstances that make it a precedent, not the exact same facts. If asteroid farming was not specifically set down in the game rules as banned but was made known to the players and was enforced when the game rule was broken by people, then yes, there is a precedent for the Creators enforcing a breach of a "rule" like this.

English law is only partly codified unlike much of European Law. It is not always necessary to point to words in black and white - there is the law of equity, implied terms and conditions - failing to find a specific sentence banning the conduct in question is actually not sufficient.

Trin

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Rumad
Actually i believe the last message of the day said you shoudln't try FARMING, no differentiation between roid or ship.

UK law has several well documented precedents about ignorance being no excuse if an attempt to communicate with the party has been attempted.

There is no argument here, I don't really know how its got to 3 pages.

Simply rabba decided to push the rules, it was classed as cheating. He should be deleted.

If Dreadnought had instead PM'd Spinner instead of asking him in Creator's Hour, and then Spinner posted their irc log on the portal - then it would be a clear case that they did an inadequate job of conveying the rules change to the players.

That the question was instead addressed in a Creator's Hour becomes irrelevant though when you look at the percentage of total players that attend or read entire logs of _every_ Creator's Hour. Furthermore, Rabba's contract did not involve him keeping up to date with what notifications are made over the portal or in Creator's Hour.

Therefore, the Creator's are under their contractual obligation with him (clause 3) to cause the new rule to be binding to him when he is made aware of it. The obvious place to put this rules change is in overview, since every player is taken to overview when they access their account - the only time they could violate a rule such as farming. An announcement could also be made over the official announcements section of the forums, and then have a link to it in overview.

Bottom line is that Rabbagast _did not_ break his contract, and thus the only ground for deletion is the catch all clause 7. If PA crew ever resorts to deleting people on the grounds of clause 7, then their ability to manage a p2p environment ought to come into question.

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Rumad
thats where we differ. I BELIEVE that that is a valid communication. What you read into it is neither here nor there. You could have asked for clarifcation if you needed, but I think the fact that it never included the word ROID and the fact that there have been several deletions for ship farming which are well documented make yoru argument flimsy to say the least.

Anyway I really have to do some work now will reply to anything of note at Lunchtime

Name a well documented, and well publicized deletion for SHIP FARMING.

[Tin-Tin]

Well.. I'm strongly against all cheating, and fleet-farming for that matter. But until today I thought ship-farming wasn't illegal.. just morally so.. I must admit I don't read all CH and forum-threads and whatnot.. and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Don't know nothing about what Rabba knew or didn't though. But I can understand it if he didn't.

If overview had been like it is now, I would surely know it was illegal though.

Delete a bunch of his roids, ships, resources, whatever.. deletion is a bit harsh if u ask me. Be it a friend or foe

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Rumad
Fred was deleted for ship and roid i believe.

I'm rather certain it was just for Roid farming. Can you give another?

[Obfuscator]

Originally posted by Rumad
The agreement states all the rules. The agreement also covers what would breach the agreement and there is a coverall.

Then why does the agreement NOT cover farming?

Originally posted by Rumad
In a court of law I can gurantee your agument would be thrown out. Simply put as long as an attempt has been attempted (creators hour/announcements/messgae of the day) then they have discharged there obligation of informing you fo what is right and what is wrong.

The attempt must be reasonable. If I own a highrise apartment building with 400 tenants, and I tell 20 of them that starting on Monday, anyone who says, "I don't like pancakes" will be evicted, it will never hold up as reasonable notice of the change of terms of our agreement. This is PRECISELY what happened with Ship Farming, something which was only made illegal in r9, and which was only mentioned as changing in CH, and on the forums.

Originally posted by Rumad
Law is also about reasonableness and it would expect the party to also make efforts to find this information out (creators hour/motd/announceents). Ignorance is not accepted in a UK law, regardless of how much you argue with me.

The best you could hope is that you can prove negligence, which due to the coverall and the fact that there are several documented cases in the past you will not be able to do.

To continue my analogy, if there is no reason to think that saying "I don't like pancakes" will result in my eviction, why on earth would I inquire about this specifically? If Rabba read the manual and the EULA, and didn't see any mention of the rules change in the OFFICIAL rules, why on earth would he be expected to inquire further?

[N0VA]

Originally posted by Rumad
I don’t want to repeat myself, but looks like you make me.

The agreement states all the rules. The agreement also covers what would breach the agreement and there is a coverall.

In a court of law I can gurantee your agument would be thrown out. Simply put as long as an attempt has been attempted (creators hour/announcements/messgae of the day) then they have discharged there obligation of informing you fo what is right and what is wrong.

Law is also about reasonableness and it would expect the party to also make efforts to find this information out (creators hour/motd/announceents). Ignorance is not accepted in a UK law, regardless of how much you argue with me.

The best you could hope is that you can prove negligence, which due to the coverall and the fact that there are several documented cases in the past you will not be able to do.

My argument would be thrown out in a court of law due to clause 7. PA crew made adequate provisions that they could make decisions without fear of legal retribution.

What we are discussing today is whether a person deserves getting deleted even though they upheld their end of the user agreement.

Apart from a permanent ban, deletion is the harshest penalty that PA crew can dish out. It should only be used in cases of severe rules infractions. I use the term severe here to avoid deleting people for questionable banner material, etc.

Since Rabbagast's actions are seen as detrimental to the game by PA crew - but not adequately expressed as a rules violation - then his punishment should involve a removal of the ships that he gained in this fashion. Any benefits that those ships have served his alliance and planet in the meantime will be more than taken care of by his account closure, preventing resource growth and defense for his alliance mates throughout the examination.

When you argue that ignorance is not an excuse, you are right in a legal context- PA crew can delete for this. Since their own user agreement essentially has an "ignorance is justifiable if we don't do our part" clause, clause 3 - then Rabbagast should receive no punishment that exceeds correcting the wrong that occurred.

The debate is not over whether PA crew has the right or ability to delete Rabbagast's account - it is instead over whether or not they should.

If people can abide by the user agreement and still get deleted, why should anyone sign up for another round of this nonsense?

as i understand it farming need the participitation of 2 or more planets. Have the other planet/s been closed?

[cbk100]

Originally posted by Madina
would you care this much if another HC u had no contact with got closed for ship farming?

To be honost. No I wouldn't!!! this took a ****load of time and yes I only did it cause rabba is who he is. Maybe I would have done it for Cavalier(hmm typo) but not for other beside those.

cbk

[cbk100]

Originally posted by cyphie
proof? reason for deleting?

that clause 7 covers it all. and saying some n00b didn't know ok.
but we both know rabba knew damn well he wasn't allowed.
he knew he was commiting an offence and he will admit that aswell or he's really a liar and i doubt he is tbh. a judge would take into account what the person who commited an offence knows. i don't know exactly what it's called in english but an offence when you clearly know about it is much worse then when you don't and only in THAT situation when you DID NOT know some things can be excuses. which is not the case here.

You are absolutely right that a cout would consider if he was in good or bad belive, but since farming actualy isn't even illegal it would never go as far as to the cout and if it did they would have nothing to judge him by and even if they should judge him by something, rabba has a DAMN good case, cause Prince has admitted that rabba got closed because of the will of the mass (because they wanted to see blod) and not in line with the rules. Nomatter how you put it you can NEVER EVER judge a person because of the will of the ppl who spam the most..

cbk

[cbk100]

Originally posted by glaci3r
Grand arguements but what should be an acceptable punishment? If we consider the maximum to be deletion of your account by such offenses as Multi'ing, account sharing, and roid farming. What would the less serious "ship farming" result in?

Loss of resources, roids, or ships? I agree that ship-farming is a less damaging sort of action... i had this nice argument bout your analysis of it being a zero-sum game, but it all revolved around the two player interactions. Wasn't as well supported as i thought.

Well its simple... multi'ing is defeined as illegal in the manual such as account sharing. To break those rules will mean that PA HQ can close the account, but once again I say that both roid farming and ship farming is not in the manual and therefore can't lead to a deletion.

cbk

[-CP-]

Originally posted by Rumad
Rabba has no case. A piss poor lawyer could get this thrown out, never mind a good one.

Allthough your argument has some interesting aspects I think it is time you guys agreed to disagree.. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere does it?

[cbk100]

Originally posted by cyphie
if you want facts the manual says creators can close over anything.

so hey who needs further proof?

and as i stated he knew it was illegal (else he would not have resigned as HC either) it is stated creators can close when they want and it has been stated farming is illegal and so is shipfarming.

now as for your posts.. just read and think and you won't have to post again ty

Are you really so stupit that you think creators can close accounts for anything they want?

This is a game they try to keep running and if they want to keep on doing that they have to run it in a professional way and to run it in a professional way is NOT what they have done here.

And yes by law they can close anything they want, but as I said they can't do it if they want to keep their respect and want to keep the game running. And furthermore Prince has agreed that it was the mass that closed the account and not his will.

Can you find anywhere in the manual where it says that its the mass that rules above HQ and that its the mass that can close whatever they want?

I can't!!!

cbk

[cbk100]

Originally posted by storeslem
Who cares if it's in the EULA, when the creators can close him for no reason whatsoever ?

GJ Prince

read above

cbk

[laputa]

Originally posted by Sjor
Closed by the law or by the mass??

^^ Closed by the law for mass farming

or explainme how can a l33t guy #1 planet very active and so on get such a BR ?

http://www.pilkara.com/parsers.php?scanid=1059074480

maybe he overslept?

[cbk100]

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
You just became the personification of the word thick.

Oi is that good or bad?

What eaxacly does that mean?

cbk

as i understand it farming need the participitation of 2 or more planets. Have the other planet/s been closed?

well??

Rumad hun, i think alot of you i really do.
1 I myself have been to my solicitors only this morning Rumad and I have been told that down to the contract that i signed up with i have a damn good chance of winning if i was in Rabba's shoes. Yes it would be petty to go to court over £7, yet it is the principle i myself am talking about. If Rabba is to be deleted then so should all Zikonians. Sorry just my humble opinion.

2 As far as i understand it takes 2 to farm yet as far as i know the other planet has not been closed. Why is this?

and another thing

Why are all of you on both sides,being so insulting to each other!!!
Its not necessary to be name calling and cursing at each other on this or any other matter. You all ought to be totally ashamed of yourselves for this. And should perhaps start acting your age or maybe some of you are. Calling someone a '****wit' i think it was meant to be, or calling them thick when you just cant see their point of view is not only sad but childish

sure some of you are angry either for or against Rabba, but you all seem to be missing the point.

sure i dont feel that rabba should be closed as i feel that he signed a contract with pa. Found a loophole, used it, yes cheated, but you can hardly blame him for using a loophole. Secondly there has been no mention of the other planet also being closed.

Now i myself do not know what race Rabba is, and im presuming that he is Zikonian. Fair play to the guy. YES it sucks. Yes its wrong!! YES its cheating. But all he did was find a loophole and used it.. if thats how you see it.


I call as one of the so called masses for this other planet to also be deleted.

If you want to see Rabba closed.. Fair play to you.. but at least have the common sense to see the whole picture and also cry out for the other planet to be deleted.

So people are up in arms because he found a loophole. Fine!!

so go fix the loophole so that this matter does not happen again.

heh not you personally ofc Rumad

[Petru]

Originally posted by karis
well??

Rumad hun, i think alot of you i really do.
1 I myself have been to my solicitors only this morning Rumad and I have been told that down to the contract that i signed up with i have a damn good chance of winning if i was in Rabba's shoes. Yes it would be petty to go to court over £7, yet it is the principle i myself am talking about. If Rabba is to be deleted then so should all Zikonians. Sorry just my humble opinion.

2 As far as i understand it takes 2 to farm yet as far as i know the other planet has not been closed. Why is this?

Don't be silly, there would be no legal case. It states in the EULA that every user agreed to that HQ has the right to close a planet as it sees fit. They can do so without justification or reason if they so desire. You, Rabba and everyone else agreed to it.


People misunderstood my original post as defending Rabba, saying that if others were let off he should be too. I'm saying the opposite, if he's now been closed why can't others who were given the benefit of an ambiguous EULA now be closed.

[Petru]

Originally posted by karis
Found a loophole, used it, yes cheated, but you can hardly blame him for using a loophole.

You can't honestly believe this?

Let me guess.... he had the best intentions or something?

and no, im not silly imo. yes zik race cannot be totally got rid of but as long as thieves are about, this is going to be a problem no matter what.

My point still stands tho. Has the other planet also been closed?

[furssie]

Originally posted by karis

I myself have been to my solicitors only this morning Rumad and I have been told that down to the contract that i signed up with i have a damn good chance of winning if i was in Rabba's shoes. Yes it would be petty to go to court over £7, yet it is the principle i myself am talking about

Oh dear

Please tell me you didn't actually do that. please.