Im not done yet!

foogaloowhoOP

Strategos
Here's what I think. Any form of spam, that has no strategic value to it = ban. And no, spamming someone so they can't sleep for days and turn their alarm off, is not a strategy... that's harassment. This includes flash spamming, also. This includes colonizing on ocean 12 to send 20h+ long TT minimal attacks to players you don't like, or got hired to spam.

Fakes as part of an OP... Attacks every 5 mins to prevent a player golding units in a pinch... Spam to mess up a self snipe attempt... Island HCs to gather info on all islanders... Spy bombs... Send/recalls as part of timing... Any of these, that are not long-lasting, non relenting forms of harassment, and constitute genuine strategies... absolutely fine. And it will not deter anyone to be as aggressive as they wanna be.

Far beyond me to insult anyone's intelligence but... is really not that hard. One just needs common sense, and ask himself.... "is this douchy?".

You formed a good guideline yourself, honestly i cant think of anything more to add. This is what the mods need to do, that's all and I believe that is what folks want.
 

DeletedUser56913

Guest
So we declare the mods can have a Douche Ban ... applicable with judgement by the mods.... based solely on the fact the attacks were numerous or repetitive, and served no purpose.

Ask yourself - can I justify these attacks - what other evidence can the mods see that confirms this ... obviously Ops, timing, other attacks, CS sent, siege on and opponent rebuilding troops ... if there is no other action happening other than repetitive attacks with no attempt to take the city, save a city, or save a siege - you are just being a Douche
 

DeletedUser56913

Guest
Great discussion guys - we have a few who had a good discussion, only 24,600 more people to convince ... bwa ha ha
 

Corvidaan

Phrourach
I think you’re all missing the point.

This is not a discussion about self governance, in an ideal world everybody would already be following those self imposed guidelines. This is about the way that mod punishment for fair play is set out.

A reliance on using a subjective notion of “strategic worth” is also a recipe for disaster. What happens when a mod disagrees with the player on the worth of an attack?

That said, I’m done with this topic, it’s just going in circles and to be quite honest, it doesn’t affect me one bit, so I’m just going to bury my head in the sand and just stick to playing the game, because debating anything within this community strikes me as futile and not likely to lead to change even if a consensus is reached.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser56913

Guest
Okay so maybe some think this is futile -but change is an uphill battle - and maybe it is easier to go with the flow - but when the flow is causing a major dilemma then Futile uphill climbing is what is required to change the mindset of the players. This thread was a conversation about the effects of SPAM - players are unhappy not having fun in the game - and because they were unhappy - they ghosted - and because they ghosted the world was missing a true competition for the win. Because players where ghosting and quitting - mods were employing "The Fair Play Rule" to combat Spam - then players were complaining that this was an abuse of power because there were no clear rules as to how - when and why rule was employed - then players were petitioning the game to fire her. Spam is a form of bullying - I will make your life miserable until you quit or give up.

This is the very nature of the problem - Players ARE determining the type/style of world we play in. Players ARE determining the type/style of external forum we use. It is hostile and players who are breaking the rules do so because no one can catch them - being rude and hostile to any idea put forth - attacking the person suggesting the idea - not the idea itself.

Governance IN GAME is definitely SELF GOVERNANCE - the style of play is determined by Founders, Leaders and Players. - sometimes alliances are autocracies - some are dictatorships - and some groups are autonomous - depends which alliance you have joined.

External Forums and Game Rules - are created and determined and controlled by Grepolis, They have told us many times - if you want to see change - suggest the way to change things and have a discussion. The external forums is the best place to discuss how changes would improve and change the game.

No new idea or change can be embraced by everyone as suggested - there needs to be suggestions - then counterpoints - then changes - and then acceptance. Acceptance is not my way or your way - but a compromise that we suggest we could live with.

But none of it will happen unless both sides are given respect when Talking and Playing.
 

DeletedUser55889

Guest
I think you’re all missing the point.

This is not a discussion about self governance, in an ideal world everybody would already be following those self imposed guidelines. This is about the way that mod punishment for fair play is set out.

A reliance on using a subjective notion of “strategic worth” is also a recipe for disaster. What happens when a mod disagrees with the player on the worth of an attack?

That said, I’m done with this topic, it’s just going in circles and to be quite honest, it doesn’t affect me one bit, so I’m just going to bury my head in the sand and just stick to playing the game, because debating anything within this community strikes me as futile and not likely to lead to change even if a consensus is reached.
I concur -- this topic is going nowhere, and, like you said, even if we were to reach a community consensus (big if), highly doubt it will ever be implemented. People have different opininos on this topic, and those opinions are heavily influenced whether you are being affected by spam or are benefiting from spam due to some of your players using it. There will never, ever be a universal, agreed-upon definition and rule of spam, and this is why so many of us are disappointed it's replaced with the 'Fair-play' rule. There is no clear definition as to what is and what is not allowed, and if we are to play by the rules, it's unfair to hold us ransom using an argument of 'Use your common sense'.
 

DeletedUser56913

Guest
Nice good response LaSophie ... This is what I agree with - You have a valid opinion, The Fair Play Rule is not "FAIR" because it can't be defined. I agree - it should be defined. But I also feel that Spam should be defined. In a perfect world both should be defined absolutely - the answer to an unfair game act is not to implement an unfair discipline act to balance it that doesn't make spam go away it just creates another opportunity for abuse of rules.

What I don't agree with in your statement is that this is futile and going nowhere - therefore we are doing something that some think is not worthy of discussion in this forum therefor just give up. Finding a solution is hard, it takes patience and listening,

Players have been trying to get a clear definition of Spam and have become frustrated and employing a Fairplay Rule is just the last level of frustration from players who want it to stop and are willing to employ an unfair discipline system to combat an unfair Spam situation.

So if we discuss what is spam - and we are met with - can't fix it so just deal with it - well then teams will ghost - players will go into VM - players will leave game and not return. Then if I ghost which is my only way to stop the SPAM - why am I berated as not being a Good Player, Why am I belittled if I employ VM and told I am running away.

The only defence we have is to ghost, quit, hit VM or try to change it. But the answer can't be just sit and take it and stop trying to change it.
 

1saaa

Strategos
Personally I think rays definition of spam is the way to go. There is still a large grey area though which is why I think that the added concept of figuring out whether or not spam is particularly 'douchey' from every situation should be vital for initiating banns for spam.
 

DeletedUser56872

Guest
to be fair spam was just brought into the game to combat alarm users when alarms first became legalised. It was the alarms in the first place that caused the biggest unbalancing of the game. At a time when grcr didn't exist you had some players that didn't have app, therefore alarm. Spam was used as a tactic to level the playing field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lethal-Bacon

Polemarch
no alarm/no spam.

it glitches way too much for way too many players and inno has not been able to stabilize it for years, why not scrap it altogether and with same move fix spam.
 

DeletedUser55989

Guest
players will never ditch their alarm, if Inno were to ban the alarm they'd probably lose as many players as they do to spam. If this were an uncontrolled environment then yes alarms or spam would have to be a choice. But moderation has to be the solution to getting rid of spam, just like most legal codes around the world, judges (moderators) decisions set precedent, uses of the fair play ban should be precedent setting and eventually work their way into the games rule book. I have no doubt that a justifiable use of the fair play rule to prevent spam could be written into a rule.
 

DeletedUser56872

Guest
actually, back in the day when there was no alarms, worlds had player volume and nearly always reached Oc72/82 etc... after it was legalised worlds struggle to get enough players to go much past 53/63 etc.. It is a justifyable tactic for a none alarm player to spam an alarm player, to get them to turn off the alarm, and hence level the playingfield. What is wrong which has crept in is spam bots.
 

DeletedUser52860

Guest
I’m sorry mate but to sit there and say spam is how you counter the alarm shows a real lack of class! Maybe you could try practice, hard work, excellent timings and strong teamwork like the players who don’t resort to it. They still take cities and beat teams with zero spam?

Having played before and after the alarm personally I think it has improved the game but I can see why players who can’t use it (shared bedrooms for younger players, school or work and even angry wives/husbands) don’t like it. It was really about improvements in technology and greater access to it that brought the alarm. Do you really think people would accept it if inno didn’t offer push notifications on an app based war game in 2020?

Personally if the only way I could beat someone was to troll them out of the game by abusing it’s legitimate features I would probably play something else. I guess that’s because I wouldn’t feel comfortable spoiling the game experience for someone else for my own gain.

You are summing up exactly why it’s not fair play within the boundaries of the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser54384

Guest
Players spam players, because...

1. They are lazy to land proper Cs.
2.They are unable to land Cs.
3.They hate the player.
It has nothing with alarm, there were previous worlds with alarm and no spam, this spam has become actual during the past two years, so give up the nonsense about alarm thing.
 

DeletedUser56872

Guest
Having played before and after the alarm personally I think it has improved the game but I can see why players who can’t use it (shared bedrooms for younger players, school or work and even angry wives/husbands) don’t like it. It was really about improvements in technology and greater access to it that brought the alarm. Do you really think people would accept it if inno didn’t offer push notifications on an app based war game in 2020?


You are summing up exactly why it’s not fair play within the boundaries of the game.
Yes the alarm has meant that poor players that spend gold like nobodies buisness are pretty invunerable even though they would be terrible without it. The bottom line is the alarm is about retaining money from people that don't get disenchanted by spending masses then losing it all. Not about improving the game. It wa the alarm that made this game pay to win, and therefore I don't begrudge the use of physical counters. If you think it is about anything other than money you are sadly mistaken.
 

DeletedUser55989

Guest
Yes the alarm has meant that poor players that spend gold like nobodies buisness are pretty invunerable even though they would be terrible without it. The bottom line is the alarm is about retaining money from people that don't get disenchanted by spending masses then losing it all. Not about improving the game. It wa the alarm that made this game pay to win, and therefore I don't begrudge the use of physical counters. If you think it is about anything other than money you are sadly mistaken.
The alarm benefits non gold users more, I can't gold out new nukes every day and if I had to I would quit. The alarm awards players who can be the most active, which is how gold vs non gold should be balanced.
 

DeletedUser56872

Guest
I guess you never played in the times when you had strategise your activity to keep people guessing. Now you can log on 3 times a day each time your alarm goes, spend some gold and be classed as a great player.
 

Raydium88

Strategos
I guess you never played in the times when you had strategise your activity to keep people guessing. Now you can log on 3 times a day each time your alarm goes, spend some gold and be classed as a great player.

I guess you never lined up on an active enemy... you know, by timing and not being lazy? Instead of ruining your opponent's gameplay experience because you can't catch them offline..... food for thought.
 
Top