Acquiescence

[kell]

hold on. i was disabled for maxing sheal a few rounds ago. I thought asking somebody to max you was a perm ban

[Firetooth]

hold on. i was disabled for maxing sheal a few rounds ago. I thought asking somebody to max you was a perm ban

yes, that means snare 2nd me 3rd. Wolf bite said with wise claw !"Ignorance is no excuse"! so I dont think it should be here either no offence.

[taekwondokid42]

Wolf Bite was the one who mislead me, so I'll let him make the call.

But, if I do get disabled, how will we re-organize the high scores  ???

[wolf bite]

To the best of my knowledge, my mail is the current rule.

"Before people would lose land to someone if they only attacked with a small army, and that was against the rules. That should have been changed so no land will be lost to the attackee anymore. It is highly frowned on to max someone to keep others from attacking them. Almost a killable offense. But I don't believe it is against the rules at this time."

If the rule is different, then I will enforce it in the future, however up to this time people are acting on the rules as I know them, thus not an offense.

If someone has a link from an Admin saying different, I will look at it.


Wolf Bite
(Admin Duties)

[Firetooth]

Shael says:
"Cody (#11) should have been disabled for intentional maxxing at the end.
kell was also disabled earlier in the day for intentional maxxing."

Most other people seem to know Wise Claw didn't know now she's left Taek really should've known, your own quote is: "Ignorance is no excuse" well seems to me your letting taek get away with this because of ignorance.
He commited WORSE then snare and kell. Shade and Shael didn't asked to be maxed. He did. You've gotta be consistent.

[Wolf Snare]

Wolf, intentional maxing is against the rules. I can't find it written down, but I know I've been punished plenty of times for doing this. I found a post made by you a few years ago when it was really an issue.

Okay, about time I speak on this. Long ago I took emperor and had myself intentionally maxed until I had full turns to create enough resources that I could hold it on my own.

Then the ?lose of land? to the attackee when the attacker was very weak was added to the program. Holby made a big land run and then lost all his land to me. With full turns and half the land in the game, I made the resources to easily hold the top.

When I did the above, I did it just for a few days to get a hold on the game, and then kept the top through fighting and diplomacy. (Both listed in my Journal)

But this little trick has really gotten over done as of late. People keep using it for the whole game and keep handing up all the land to people on top. At this point it is now getting really unfair and is costing us players as no one wants to play a game where the only one that has land is invincible.

Therefore I am very seriously debating on doing evil things to those that run the ?one rat attack? or the ?intentional maxing? strategies. Pending approval from the other Admins, I may start doing evil things to accounts that attempt this. Those evil things could be forcing the guilty into a clan or just disabling them. Be warned that this may go into effect without notice.


Wolf Bite
(Admin Duties)

Shortly after this happened, it became a bannable offence. We fixed the losing land feature, but intentionally maxing a friend was still never allowed. We made the spell "open attack ops" to deal with the situatiion... But for as long as I can remember, over 6 intentional maxings results in a disabling on both sides if there is a deal made.

edit:

Especially in this situation, taek should be taken out of the immort. Why? because many of our players have been punished for intentionally maxing. Why else? because Taek KNEW it was illegal.

why is intentional maxing bad? It is a strat.

It was banned quite a few years ago, soon after i started playing together with snare so probably 2 years or so ago. It was banned because it was WAY to useful, believe me, me and snare used to use it alot ^_^

this was this year. So he cant really say that he didn't know. Even if, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[taekwondokid42]

Taek KNEW it was illegal.

why is intentional maxing bad? It is a strat.

It was banned quite a few years ago, soon after i started playing together with snare so probably 2 years or so ago. It was banned because it was WAY to useful, believe me, me and snare used to use it alot ^_^

this was this year. So he cant really say that he didn't know. Even if, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I had actually forgotten. Even though it was only 2 months ago. But I willingly accept my punishment.

[wolf bite]

We need to take things in content. Yes, back when there was land loss I was in favor with outlawing the one rat attack. With the board approval I made this post.

http://www.redwallwarlords.com/forums/index.php?topic=7574.0

However it is only about the loss of land. After Shael fixed that problem, it is not a problem.  I know of no mention as to intentional maxing being against the rules. Should it be? I think so. But should it be the Admin's job to check for intentional maxing? Nope, unless it is a bug, multis or bro accounts we admins should not need to regulate the game. Do I feel that the players are justified to run a kill on the person doing the maxing? YES, kill the sucker!  (Hehe)

We have talked about putting in a sub program where too many failed attacks will not allow any more, but that has not been decided on as of yet. However we do have open attack opportunity to make intentional maxing almost useless.

I don't know when Shael may have disabled someone for intentional maxing, but she did not talk to me before doing it, if she did indeed do it.

Wise claw is not a good example because she knew. Enough said.

As to ignorance being no excuse. Right, if someone opens 5 multi accounts and says they did not know, then it is no excuse. However if you pass a street sign saying "speed limit 65" and a cop gives you a ticket because the real limit is 45, then the driver was going based on "authoritative advise".

I repeat my ruling. In the past maxing was based on authoritative advise and NOT punishable. If it can be shown it is against the rules, I will enforce it in the future. I am also willing to talk about making it against the rules if we can not come up with more programming to deter it.

Wolf Bite

[meestir amayzing]

maybe the person maxing taek was just trying to get him banned for the round cuz he was holding the land?(or just wanted to do it for fun like NiZ)  if you stop looking at it that the person being maxed is always at fault you might find out wat really happened...

[taekwondokid42]

actually, everyone who maxed me did so at my bidding. (at least as far as I'm aware)

I sent them Wolf Bites quote as well, so none of them actually believed that they were breaking rules. So everyone who maxed me is off the hook if I am.

[Firetooth]

wolf, what dont you get? Taek KNEW! I wouldn't make such a fuss if he'd been maxing but he paid to be maxed. He could just say he forgot. Mleh, let him off but you can't just make the rules up as you go along.

[Wolf Snare]

You want proof?

What more proof could I offer you? All of our members who have intentionally maxed others over the past 4+ years have paid the price. You were handing out the punishments half the time wolf, what am I missing?

[Holby]

I am with Wolf on this one. I have been told by players that it is illegal, but there was no specific ruling written anywhere that I knew of.

Because there was a discrepancy in the ruling on this, Taek can not be penalised, but the official rule should be given ASAP.

[Firetooth]

Pleh. Whatever. I really dont care anymore. Someone could hack your code and they wouldn't get a ban, but if they take 3 acres they can ::) Im not even bothering anymore, and Holby taek did know, snare proved that. Let him off. The rules of this site just aren't consisitent in any sense of the word, I've even asked for a ban before and I haven't recieved one, and I was doing something worse then what Wise Claw did.

[The Lady Shael]

I'm actually not sure about the rules on intentional maxing myself because I wasn't around when they were made. People kept making a big deal about kell intentionally maxing me and accusing me of playing favorites when I didn't disable him, and I wasn't aware it was a bannable offense. Neither Peace nor wolf were around at the time and I was playing. But everyone told me that the protocol was a disabling for intentional maxing, so I did. I forgot to ask wolf about it when he came back.

I don't think Taek should've been disabled because he checked with wolf to make sure it was okay and wolf told him it was okay. But I think the only way to improve the enforcement of this rule is to add some stuff to the code.

One, stop attacks when you've failed on one person too many times. (like 8 or 10 times)

Two, add a rule that you MUST attack with a certain percentage of your army.

Or three, failing an attack doesn't count towards the 21 possible attacks.

Unfortunately intentional maxing would still be possible with all of these measures if the victim is willing to be broken.


In the future, if a player did not know about the rule, they should be given a warning. If they do it again, then they should be disabled for a certain amount of time (me and wolf will discuss this when we are both online). The warning will be decided by admins though, because many of you have been here for a very long time, and it's almost impossible not to hear about all the ruckus intentional maxing has caused.