Fake pillages

[Polymeron]

clear rules, what is that? all rules have exceptions. and no enforcement is perfect.     

Where is my +karma button? Where?! 


reni, even if you can show that, someplace someone said that all fixed battles constitute cheating (and I am not aware of such a case), you are still making a few assumptions that are required for your syllogism to work:

- That the definition of "fixed battles" the author intended is the same as the one you are making
- That the author would not change his mind about it should these extra consequences become apparent; or otherwise, that said author is not eligible of changing rules he set even if these contradict his intent.

When discussing law, more important than the letter of the law is the spirit of the law, and keeping the intent of the legistlator in mind. Consider that before pursuing your argument. 


For the record, I have performed both friendly pillages and kamikazes before. I have also refused to become a Trojan once. Just FYI.

[k_mihai]

that`s my problem with syllogism. they don`t say anything new, only explicit the premises (that`s kind of common knowledge, reni, regarding deductive reasoning). or the premises is what we are debating here.

and i can`t help to add that all rules are enforced by someone, they don`t apply by themselves. that`s why in RL police and courts exists. since not everything can be predicted from the start, excessive strict rules are a burden, leading either to disregard, or to abuse, or to "corruption".   

[reni]

I don't agree about "spirit of law". Generally laws are understood in that mode in dictatorship or predictatorship states (I have a bunch of examples if you want). Anyway... i think we are going too far.
As you can see here, there are many issues about players that don't understand the rules, because they are unclear, or even (some times) badly written in english. We are discussing from a philosophical point of view if that is "cheat" or not (and we can agree or not, that is not important), while from practical point of view, i see only confusion.

And also, the worst is when is see here veterans (they are no more then 10-20) that write messages like RTFM for poor people that are completely confused with this rules.

Do you think IO is for 10-20 people? I don't think so.

Polymeron, we can't invent new definition for words. We have not such a authority. And also IO has not such a authority. So fixed battle means an arrangement between to players to fight a battle. I'm sorry, but the reason for this is not important. Maybe is better to invent a new word. For example "Fuxed battle", and state that "Fuxed battle" means a Fixed battle, but not considering x+y+z cases. 

Mihai, as long as you don't "induct" you don't add anything new. We know this 

But we are not spaking for anything new here? Or not? 

[k_mihai]

but we are. at least, in this discussion, cause is clear that we talk about very different things. IMO rules should be adjusted to experience
for example, in ur last post, rules has at least 2 meanings: handbook and "law". RTFM doesn`t apply to fair play rules (and is understandable, cause, a lot of times, the same question is repeated).

and nope, in dictatorship, rules are usually very precise. besides that, most of good rules have exceptions. killing is forbidden, except in self defense, for example.

here, again, tricking the rankings is forbidden

   

[Radooo]

ok...so you say that I fix battles with my friend? I want and like to attack him and he doesn't want to defend against me because he doesn't want to lose army and definitely he doesn't want to kill a friend's army...And do not forget that you can't know for sure when exactly is a fixed battle and when not (I don't even consider that admins can't be wrong with a pushing battle)

P.S. When players usually tell RTFM, that is because the answer to the question is clearly in the manual

[reni]

but we are. at least, in this discussion, cause is clear that we talk about very different things. IMO rules should be adjusted to experience
for example, in ur last post, rules has at least 2 meanings: handbook and "law". RTFM doesn`t apply to fair play rules (and is understandable, cause, a lot of times, the same question is repeated).

and nope, in dictatorship, rules are usually very precise. besides that, most of good rules have exceptions. killing is forbidden, except in self defense, for example.

here, again, tricking the rankings is forbidden

Sorry Mihai, i don't agree about precise laws under dictatorship. The laws there are too much emotionally forced (like "mases" desire). Of course, dictatorships many times use "this revolutionar mases desire" to add new precise laws, but that is a post mortum process

When i'm against RTFM, i don't speak for cases when the person asks how to hire soldiers. But there are other cases.

As far as i remember there was a very long thread here with a person that suffered from a trojan. Most of you were against him, while his argument was simple: Candidate is not an Ally. And i think he was right (I'm not discussing is pushing or not)

Also, i think you are misunderstanding me at one point.

Of course every rule has exceptions (i want also karma for that  ) but this exceptions must not go against another and more important rule. To make you understand.
We have rule A
We have rule B with exceptions B1 and B2.
If exception B1 goes against rule A then one of them is wrong.

So, IO states that pushing score (not important what) is against rules. let's say this is rule A
Rule B states that fixed battles are not allowed (because it is against fair play (lets say rule E) and also implies rule A).
Exception B1 for rule B states that Rule B is not applied when the user is trojan (unfortunately this goes against rule A in 2 ways: military score, alliance score)
Exception B2 for rule B states that Rule B is not applied when the fixed battle is a pillage (well, friendly or not is not important). Unfortunately this also goes against rule A (it implies networth score indirectly) and also against fair play (rule E)

That's all... 

[Naylrod]

That's all... 

Promise?

[k_mihai]

with trojans i agree with you. even with friendly pillages.

but, is not like that. when more than one principle is put at equal value, there must be a trade off between them. here X being "have fun", Y being "play fair".  it doesn`t matter that X and Y can contradict, we are not dealing with logic here, but with real stuff. for example, freedom and equality contradict in some cases (minimum wage for example). but this doesn`t means that one must be sacrificed in front of the other. the solution of how to do that being found in experience, by trial and error, and not by deducing from abstract principles only. rules are followed by custom, in most cases.

in this case, some fixed battles enter in X domain (army saves), other in Y (pushing money).
     
about dictatorships, sorry, but they have rules for anything: how to dress, what kind of car one can drive, how many TV channels are allowed etc.

[Sined_Oz]

Fake Pillages arent Fake, they are real in game terms, your citizens were slaughtered, and or enslaved.
leave the rule as it is, with only one change....

Any pillage against any alliance member by a member of same alliance is act of war and kick em from alliance ..compulsory

Pillages are UNfriendly..acts.. and shouldnt allow protection for allies.. its just dumb..

If the RL country you are now living in had an ally pillage and enslave your country men and women, would you stay in alliance with them...

back in dec 2007 there was discussion on this in forums and the potential problem of variable % rates of pillage...

Now i think a bit more ...
So perhaps just make pillages random percentages and NOT player controlled, maybe between  5 and 25% with a weighted number staying mainly within the 10 to 20%, but with some nastier surprises sometimes... might deter "friendly pillaging" if that can even be a word

Or better still if farms have been pillaged recently surely lil farmer mums n dads would be better the second time at hiding things of value... so every consecutive pillage on the same province weights the % lower ...but after a while with no pillages, the percentage returns to original weight...


anyway maybe i should have posted it in suggestions

[reni]

about dictatorships, sorry, but they have rules for anything: how to dress, what kind of car one can drive, how many TV channels are allowed etc.

We lived in similar systems Mihai, and we know this is not true. Most of the rules were unwritten. They were a part of "communist moral", but they were unwritten. They was no law prohibiting you tv channels, western dress, etc. But there was a law for "agitation and propaganda" were all this was not explicitly written, but was properly this law which was mostly abused from authorities. The rule was badly written in generic mode, making that a weapon in authorities hands.

But sometimes happen that an unwritten rule was even formally accepted later.
I give you an example.
Generally communist countries tried to be atheist, but none of them did this formally. Of course going in church or mosque was not liked by the system, but was not formally prohibited. If you wanted a good job, you had not to go at church sunday. That was clear!
But in 1967 something happen in Albania and most of cathedrals and mosques were destroyed or changed the destination. All this happen "unorganized" with people initiative. For 7 years this situation continued till 1974 were this was sanctioned by the constitution. This was an exception even for communist camp.

P.S.
@Naylrod... I promise... this is the last... 

[Polymeron]

Fake Pillages arent Fake, they are real in game terms, your citizens were slaughtered, and or enslaved.
leave the rule as it is, with only one change....

Any pillage against any alliance member by a member of same alliance is act of war and kick em from alliance ..compulsory

Pillages are UNfriendly..acts.. and shouldnt allow protection for allies.. its just dumb..

If the RL country you are now living in had an ally pillage and enslave your country men and women, would you stay in alliance with them...

back in dec 2007 there was discussion on this in forums and the potential problem of variable % rates of pillage...

Now i think a bit more ...
So perhaps just make pillages random percentages and NOT player controlled, maybe between  5 and 25% with a weighted number staying mainly within the 10 to 20%, but with some nastier surprises sometimes... might deter "friendly pillaging" if that can even be a word

Or better still if farms have been pillaged recently surely lil farmer mums n dads would be better the second time at hiding things of value... so every consecutive pillage on the same province weights the % lower ...but after a while with no pillages, the percentage returns to original weight...


anyway maybe i should have posted it in suggestions

Actually, a better solution of the variety you're offering would be if the time of protection depends directly on the percentage of damage done.
20% - 168 hours, a full week.
10% - Only 84 hours.
15% - 126 hours.

...And so on. This way, only staying unpillaged would increase your growth - any amount of pillaging would reduce it by the exact same rate, regardless of the pillage size.

[k_mihai]

reni, it doesn`t matter if it was written or not, we are talking about rules in general, and about what type of thinking inspired them. in communist regimes, almost everything was regulated. there was even a rule who stated that only drivers with a type of plates could drive on Sundays. we are talking about rules in general now.

[Polymeron]

I don't agree about "spirit of law". Generally laws are understood in that mode in dictatorship or predictatorship states (I have a bunch of examples if you want).

Not so. While laws are detailed as much as possible in a democracy, the courts need to constantly interpret the law. "intent of the legislator" and "spirit of the law" are two phrases you will find in many, many verdicts. Look it up

Polymeron, we can't invent new definition for words. We have not such a authority.

But that does not mean that if I use a word, I actually mean its full definition. In that case, I should be allowed to rephrase that term to clarify my meaning. I cannot be held bound by a misstatement.
Mind you, some words and phrases have more than one meaning. In this case, the word "battle" can be interpreted in a way that precludes cases in which only one side has an army. Now, you'll claim that "battle" refers to any game combat. But you can't determine this - it could also mean a clash of two armies. How's that for multiple definitions? 

Maybe is better to invent a new word. For example "Fuxed battle", and state that "Fuxed battle" means a Fixed battle, but not considering x+y+z cases. 

Unfortunately, and regardless of how much you would like to believe the opposite, nothing has a definition so clear-cut that it cannot be challenged, and has no gray areas. If you have a car, and you start taking out of it one molecule at a time, when does it stop being a car? The answer is amorphic at best, and though you can try to define it, any such definition would be arbitrary, and more than likely subject to its own exceptions. In truth, definitions are shaped by perception, not vice versa (although admittedly once a definition is already set, that, too, happens. Note though the order of consequence).

Reni, I'll make it even simpler and just state again the three points I have made and that you left unanswered.

- The burden of proof that all "fixed battles" are considered cheating is still on you.
- Succeeding that, you are still making the assumption that whoever (who?) authorized such a statement truly intended it by the same definition you are giving it. This assumption is hereby challenged.
- Succeeding that, you are still assuming that said intent remains unchanged in the face of new developments, as well as rising enforcement issues. Or, alternately, that intent is irrelevant in legislation. Both these assumption are hereby challenged.

Answer me these three points, and I'll start taking seriously the comparison you are making between friendly pillages and gold pushing.


Mind you: We seem to be in agreement about the rules needing to be stated as clearly as possible to avoid confusion.

[reni]

Not so. While laws are detailed as much as possible in a democracy, the courts need to constantly interpret the law. "intent of the legislator" and "spirit of the law" are two phrases you will find in many, many verdicts. Look it up

There is a contradiction here. First of all Mihai claims that rules are more detailed in dictatorship regime, while you claims the opposite. At this point i agree with you, but not with your interpretation. There is no "spirit of law" (maybe a scope or goal of law can exist, but not spirit), while "intent of the legislator" must be well represented there without the need to explicitly write this phrase in verdict. Generally courts need to choose the right law to apply (well this can even be considered like interpretation), and not to interpret the law. The only exception is the Constitutional Court which checks the laws and has the right to nullify them besides the desire of lawmakers (parliament).

But that does not mean that if I use a word, I actually mean its full definition. In that case, I should be allowed to rephrase that term to clarify my meaning. I cannot be held bound by a misstatement.
Mind you, some words and phrases have more than one meaning. In this case, the word "battle" can be interpreted in a way that precludes cases in which only one side has an army. Now, you'll claim that "battle" refers to any game combat. But you can't determine this - it could also mean a clash of two armies. How's that for multiple definitions? 

If you don't use the first meaning of a word you have to explicitly explain that. And every word (even with multiple definitions) has a primar definition. That is not the case in cheating FAQ anyway. There is used the primar meaning.

Unfortunately, and regardless of how much you would like to believe the opposite, nothing has a definition so clear-cut that it cannot be challenged, and has no gray areas. If you have a car, and you start taking out of it one molecule at a time, when does it stop being a car? The answer is amorphic at best, and though you can try to define it, any such definition would be arbitrary, and more than likely subject to its own exceptions. In truth, definitions are shaped by perception, not vice versa (although admittedly once a definition is already set, that, too, happens. Note though the order of consequence).

I agree 100%, but not that definitions are shaped by perception. Not because is not like that, but because this perception is clearly already affected.

Reni, I'll make it even simpler and just state again the three points I have made and that you left unanswered.

- The burden of proof that all "fixed battles" are considered cheating is still on you.
- Succeeding that, you are still making the assumption that whoever (who?) authorized such a statement truly intended it by the same definition you are giving it. This assumption is hereby challenged.
- Succeeding that, you are still assuming that said intent remains unchanged in the face of new developments, as well as rising enforcement issues. Or, alternately, that intent is irrelevant in legislation. Both these assumption are hereby challenged.

Answer me these three points, and I'll start taking seriously the comparison you are making between friendly pillages and gold pushing.

Sorry, but i don't understand your questions. I consider that my fault, because english is not my mother's tongue. Maybe you can rewrite them in a more simpler way (is is possible)

Mind you: We seem to be in agreement about the rules needing to be stated as clearly as possible to avoid confusion.

P.S.
I'm really happy to have a debate like this. Is not that you find every day ppl like you and Mihai in internet forums. 

[k_mihai]

reni, for ur the first point, this is the case in continental European-style  law system, influenced by Napoleonic code. But even there, as u mentioned, there must be at least one court exempted cause there is no accepted law with superior force than a constitution in democracies (except in Kelsen`s theory). 

in common law system, courts can create law by precedents. i kind of favour the anglo-saxon one, cause the other gives too much power to central institutions (neither Napoleon, or Justinian, the other source, were adepts of decentralisation, or of personal freedom). IMO, rules in net games work better with a common law approach, cause they are decentralized, and based on personal choice. but that`s a little secondary

and thx