New Rules on spam???

Jimothy5

Chiliarch
This is sensible.

I suspect the mods would say they already believe they have established that the player who has been punished deserved it though? We (the spectators if you like) are actually the only people who are not privy to the full facts of the individual case. The perpetrator of said offence is hardly going to hold their hands up in public and tell us the whole truth if it makes them look bad.

The mods don’t need to publish everything to Avoid opening up any sort of kangaroo court, they would probably say “I have seen the evidence and I am happy with the conclusion”.

We are assuming this hasn’t happened but the truth is for all we know they could be bang-to-rights!!

Apologies mate, I don't think I was clear. I didn't mean the accused player should be allowed to defend themselves publicly, I meant that the mods should open a discussion ticket with the accused player (but only if it is not a clear cut spam case). My thinking was, the player should be confronted by the mod, stating that there are some specific actions here that are questionable under the Fair Play guidance. However, the case is not clear cut. Something like this- "please attempt to explain the strategy and tactical thinking behind these actions that are consistent with the Fair Play Guidance." With a reference to the questionable actions (like attacks or something).

So basically, this is how a mod would make a ticket for a player based on literally any other rule violation, where the rule being broken is specifically referenced, as well as the offending action. Example, I have gotten warnings for explicit content in my profile before. In the warning ticket, I was given my exact actions that were against the rules, the specific rule I was breaking was linked, referenced, AND pasted into the ticket. I was given time to correct the issue in that case, and I was respectfully allowed to plead my case and ask questions about the rule. I haven't seen anything like that for "Fair Play Violations" because it doesn't exist. Also, there is no opportunity for a player to even plead the case here, all mod responses have essentially been; "Just do better," which is frankly ridiculous and utterly lazy. There is no consistency between how mods address fair play violations and actual rule violations.

Also since there is actually not even really a Fair Play guidance, they should actually work on making it, with clear guidelines. The decision to discipline and to what degree still completely rests with the mod, this just provides an opportunity for a player to possibly defend or explain the value of their actions privately, since not everyone uses the same tactics and strategies. I have definitely picked up on different grepo strategies the hard way, thinking it was spam/stupid attacks only to get cleared of my troops or outsmarted.
 

xFate

Strategos
I am sure some of you would call this as he called "aggressive HC" it went on for many hours, at times for all day/night... I say people with a little bit of brain and intelligence would call this ******* and spam... but hey INNO was OK with it.... just thought I'd give an example as to try to clarify spam by players... lol

View attachment 13883
and this is why Charlie got banned. But yet, he still cries crying injustice
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
Here is what I would call a BASE CASE of spam. This is designed to be clear cut, while in game it would rarely be this obvious. However, we have to try and start somewhere.
If a player sends minimum population attacks, that are designed to be as small as possible (ex. 1-10 slingers per attack). If these attacks are constant over a long period of time (several hours with little to no respite), and more frequent than tactically necessary (like locking out golding of troops in the target city), then that could be considered spam. The period of time, frequency of attacks during that time, and impact of the attacks are all what makes this case clearly spam. It is designed not as a tactic to take or clear a city first, but a tactic to directly influence/pressure the player themselves. The tactical nature of the attacks becomes voided by the lack impact the attack has. Keeping a city with lots of unused population specifically for this purpose is an obvious indicator that the intent of the attacks is to spam.

The exceptions, which would NOT be considered spam;
Breaking up a myth nuke to clear militia and farm favor in small groups to avoid zues rage. These attacks could be more frequent than the golding lock out, and could even be done over an extended period, but if the attacks stop when there is no more favor or resources to loot, this is fair play. If the attacks rotate cities of the same player, this is not necessarily spam, you are checking/looting multiple towns, trying to catch returning or dodged troops, etc. The impact of these attacks is measurable and has clear tactical/game value; looting favor and resources, and BP hunting.
I agree with what you've said about fairplay.

About defining spam subjectively, I'm not so sure - I feel like the playerbase is already divided on this before you even begin the base case.

The word 'spam' is used by a lot of players loosely for a wide variety of things, and I think it's necessary to distinguish between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' spam. It sounds like this is just a matter of semantics (we could just call everything that's unacceptable 'not spam'), but there are players, including myself, who feel not all forms of spam are unacceptable (while they would still be called 'spam' by most).

Eg. mass HCing 50 of the target's cities or sending 500 x 1k spies across all their cities. I would casually refer to these as 'spamming', but I don't think these are unacceptable (although even then, some feel they are not). If someone gets 10+ attacks at once, they often will say they are 'being spammed'. If someone attacks me a lot of times during the day, I would call them 'spammy'. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we think their actions are unacceptable - hence I think it would be best for us to distinguish spam in this way.

Now, about what is and isn't acceptable spam - I think even then it is very hard to distinguish a 'base case' which a vast majority can agree on without going to extremes. I feel the middle area between acceptable and unacceptable would be too large, rendering a base case pointless (which once again, would leave deciding what is/isn't acceptable to the moderator's discretion in most cases).

--------------------------------------------------

For example, in your base case you imply that tactical necessity (and so, the player's intent) is important in deciding if the spam is acceptable or not. I disagree - it would mean the exact same actions conducted by different players could be judged differently based on their intent. It is not so much the ideal of this rule I disagree with - it is the practical implications it has. It would mean players can get away with what is 'unacceptable spam' (by your definition of tactical necessity) by lying about their intent behind the spam. Players challenged by moderators would seek to invent 'acceptable' explanations for their behaviour.

You also imply intending to primarily pressure a player is unacceptable. But the main aim of aggressive gameplay IS to pressure your opponents to give up (yes, make them go into VM; yes, make them quit). If your opponents give up, that means easy cities for you which gives you a clear tactical advantage. For me, this is an acceptable strategy - I think it is a part of the game, while I understand that others would consider this attitude to be lacking in sportsmanship and unacceptable. Now, even if one of the forms of 'unacceptable spam' is to make others quit the game, no one will own up for it - players will say they were attacking for some other reason. This leads us back to the original problem of leaving the jurisdiction of individual cases in the moderators' hands.

You mention 'Keeping a city with lots of unused population specifically for this purpose is an obvious indicator that the intent of the attacks is to spam'. I agree that it could be, but there are other reasons/benefits for keeping a mostly empty city. Rather than spam, the city can be intended to just conduct innocent HCs on the enemy (I commonly do this for newly taken cities on red islands). The player might not have decided yet what to build in that city + keep their options open, or maybe they're using their resources for other cities. In the end, this leads me back to my point on intent - it is hard to judge whether or not a player's intent is acceptable when they can lie about it whenever it is not. And about the point itself, I personally find this tactic to be completely ok, even if the player IS intending to spam with the city. The action is balanced - if you're keeping a city empty, then that's one less nuke you could be using. If my opponents do this to me to spam, I'd feel they're the ones who are losing out.

Onto what you say is acceptable - again, I feel that players can use some of these reasons to try justifying their unacceptable spam and get away with it in some cases (eg. 'If the attacks rotate cities of the same player, this is not necessarily spam, you are checking/looting multiple towns, trying to catch returning or dodged troops, etc.').

--------------------------------------------------

These are my thoughts on trying to enforce spam as a subjective rule - I don't think it's possible to be fair about it. (Yes, I was complaining about a lack of guidelines in the OP, but I'm also saying that I don't think they would be enough to solve the issue - I feel we need hard limitations on spam, preferably coded into the game.)

With rules like player harassment, which don't actually relate to the game itself, it is possible. There is no tactical reason players need to come even close to breaking such rules. But there clearly is tactical value in conducting spam, and so players will always look to push the boundary of 'acceptable' as far as possible without breaking the rules. The players who can push it the furthest without being penalised by moderators gain an edge over their opponents.
 
Last edited:

Jimothy5

Chiliarch
thanks for reading my opinion and formulating such a well thought out response, I can see and understand your view on what I wrote and appreciate you saying your thoughts. I agree it is a tough thing to regulate regardless of what ends up happening, and I know we agree that the enforcement that is going on right now is not good.

I like what you said about unacceptable and acceptable spam, it is a great point and you worded it better than I did. You made excellent arguments for aggressive gameplay, which I support completely. But again there is a difference between aggressive play and spam, and you are right when you say everyone sees that differently to a degree.

I like your idea of a hard coded limit for spam, it is the best solution. However I did not touch on that in my post because I have no idea if/how devs could implement it, let alone how to calculate it relative to player size and target size. Not to mention they have to do it in a manner that most players would agree. But by far, it is the most elegant solution. Thanks for the debate mate, truly. I think I have said all I will on the subject, I look forward to reading other people's honest opinions!
 

lllllllllllll

Lochagos
Yes I agree some one with "a little bit of brain" would call that SPAM.

It is the attitude that "the stuff I do not like MUST be spam" is the problem.
You are a part of the problem.

You have left out too many details to call that SPAM.
If there was a big nuke in that it would be called "cover" so you do not know which one to spell.
He could be farming you for rez or favor and once again avoiding the rage.
It could be "favor bait", an attempt to get you to spend favor so you do not have it for his real attack some where else.
Was he spreading his dirty cats out so they would damage the buildings better?
Plenty of reasons that may not be SPAM and thrice as many counters.

Stack the city, soak the BP, and send him a thank you PM in the morning. If hes not keeping you awake for over 24 hours.... your being a snow flake.
This aint supposed to be farmvill.




All of the top alliances run opps focusing on driving 1 or 2 players into VM. This is standard. Driving some one into VM repeatedly is not an attempt to get them to quit? That is more often than not the end result. Against the rules or not that has been standard for over 10 years. Had it tried on me plenty. Never herd of some one getting banned for it.
No Mod came to my rescue when I was hammered for over 6 months by an entire alliance daily.
It did put me in the hall of fame though.


Games have well defined rules or they cease to be a game. There are clear markers of what is and what is not a foul ball. You can not send horsemen off island without a boat. If you do not say "mother may I" first, you lose. To collect rent when some one lands on "Board Walk" you must own that space.
Three strikes are an out.... not 2 strikes and ask the referee.

If they make the rule of 100 then 99 attacks are not a loop hole, it is following the rules.
If you do not want 99 attacks then make the rule 88 instead of 100. The developers were not morons.

As to number and hard coding the developers did code in a minimum attack, which decides your maximum number of attacks.
The game they decided to make made it roughly 1/30 th of your population per city can attack.
multiply your number of complete cities by roughly 30 and there is your number of maximum attacks.
A rule the game has been quite successful with and survived over 10 years.

This is not rocket science. Rules are only difficult if you are a control freak and they should all be hard coded.
The more subjectivity you invite into a games rules the more opportunity for "disaster."
idk what top alliance do you play on then
 

DeletedUser55805

Guest
Nope, in your case you are just a cry baby. I remember the first time ever attacking you. I had sent these 4 attacks at you ONLY and you called me a spammer. These attacks were not even sent on a constant basis and you were crying. Cry babies like you are gonna kill this game

I also remember you crying about spam when Sezame would do a timed CS on you.

imgpsh-fullsize-anim-4.png
sema you are delusional as always... Sezame was in US 86 and they never tried to CS me...cry baby huh? you are a no life sad looser, if this makes you happy, spam players... I wish this would be the ONLY happiness in your life man... sad troll you... same as charlie...never ever finished a server before, he run into vaca as soon as reds spammed him back... ghost every server you popped in, banned in the rest... you and charlie can shake hands you are the same... no skills/trying to be big wallet sad losers... don't even wanna imagine how miserable your real life must be if spams/comments like this makes you happy... empty shell... no value
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser57113

Guest

Normally I would respond back with a ton of insults of my own, but I don't wanna get Shuri's thread closed. I honestly cannot take you serious at all. You call absolutely everything spam. 4 attacks is spam to you? Sent on only 1 occasion? And you cried to Charlie saying I was spamming you? Really?

Simmers like you who never want to be attacked will eventually kill this game. I bet people like you believe attacking shouldn't even be allowed in grepolis
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Shuri2060

Strategos
Normally I would respond back with a ton of insults of my own, but I don't wanna get Shuri's thread closed.

Yes, can it, please everyone, if you're here to just start personal arguments. I started this thread so we can have a discussion on the implementation of rules against spamming - I think what is happening right now is wrong.

Please refrain from recalling your anecdotal cases here if they're just going to cause controversy - I'm sure we've all had plenty of past experiences, and we don't need to hear complaints about 'so and so' spamming for the umpteenth time where it isn't needed. Keep discussions/arguments of that nature to threads where they won't be off topic or on discord.

Every spam discussion I've seen so far has been derailed for this very reason. We all want to solve the issue here, and it's not helping.
 

xFate

Strategos
At the way the mods are going about spam they will ban most of core community by what I have saw happen and then game will close down as most of core community supports inno by buying gold smh.

Only people they are banning for spam are those who are toxic to the community
 

DeletedUser55916

Guest
Whatever happened to due process? If you are accused of something, anything, where is the evidence to show that player being accused? Lack of communication by mods and game leadership will lead to a disruptive game and they will lose big money in the end... So sad. Good to see Ray, Ozzz, Shuri, and Slick here putting in work, trying to SAVE this game. Proud to call you my friends here!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser52860

Guest
What a ridiculous statement. There are thousands of players sending attacks every day across Grepolis, I have sent about 12 in the last 24 hours. I’m not being warned?

There is repeated abuse of various gameplay systems going on by a minority of players that mean dopey rules are having to be brought in which affect the whole community!

There is no doubt there will be players crying wolf over being attacked and that is also a horrible shame. Again most likely a minority. These players are just as bad as the players engaging in spam wars, or BP boosting millions of fake points to boost their rankings or to earn cheat city slots or the players landing nothing but LMD sieges on morale active conquest servers.

Thanks to any player who has abused any of the things mentioned above the mods have a horrible job trying to oversee the game. But rather than blaming the absolute numpties who do all this everyone sits there bitching about the mods who have the unenviable job of trying to stop it.

Have a word with yourselves!!!
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
What a ridiculous statement. There are thousands of players sending attacks every day across Grepolis, I have sent about 12 in the last 24 hours. I’m not being warned?

There is repeated abuse of various gameplay systems going on by a minority of players that mean dopey rules are having to be brought in which affect the whole community!

There is no doubt there will be players crying wolf over being attacked and that is also a horrible shame. Again most likely a minority. These players are just as bad as the players engaging in spam wars, or BP boosting millions of fake points to boost their rankings or to earn cheat city slots or the players landing nothing but LMD sieges on morale active conquest servers.

Thanks to any player who has abused any of the things mentioned above the mods have a horrible job trying to oversee the game. But rather than blaming the absolute numpties who do all this everyone sits there bitching about the mods who have the unenviable job of trying to stop it.

Have a word with yourselves!!!

I think it is wrong to place the blame on players who utilize non-conventional strategies to better their chances at winning a game. That opinion applies to all games. If a game has a strategy which many would consider 'toxic', 'an exploit', or even (wrongly) call 'cheating', then the blame is surely with the design rather than the players. It is up to the game designers to fix that flaw rather than put it on the playerbase to simply ignore it.

In fact, I'll go as far as to say it is the playerbase's duty to find and 'exploit' all such flaws as much as possible. Only then can a game see improvement through a feedback loop. The playerbase brings its flaws in design to light for the developers to mend, then the players continue to test the improved game rigorously, so that a game all can be satisfied with is produced.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser52860

Guest
I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me or yourself that it's ok?

It's like saying if you can manage to steal my golf clubs out of my garage it's somehow my fault. All you were doing was identifying the flaws in my security?

For me it will have to be "agree to disagree".
 

DeletedUser56742

Guest
I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me or yourself that it's ok?

It's like saying if you can manage to steal my golf clubs out of my garage it's somehow my fault. All you were doing was identifying the flaws in my security?

For me it will have to be "agree to disagree".

If you can't understand, then you will never know. Go sort out your life big boi
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
I'm not sure if you're trying to convince me or yourself that it's ok?

It's like saying if you can manage to steal my golf clubs out of my garage it's somehow my fault. All you were doing was identifying the flaws in my security?

For me it will have to be "agree to disagree".
I would be breaking the law to do so in your analogy. On the other hand, in your OP you indicate you have a problem with players who don't break the rules, but find ways to play the game that benefit themselves which others may not like.

A better analogy would be a student getting full marks in a multiple choice exam because they realised the answers are A B C A B C A B C ...

Now is it the fault of the student that this happened, or does the problem lie with the exam having poorly randomized answers?
 

DeletedUser52860

Guest
If you can't understand, then you will never know. Go sort out your life big boi

Well done mate, thanks for your intelligent response!

if you can’t be bothered to switch your brain on and bring a reasoned, thought out discussion to the table, like shuri, perhaps you should just go back to trolling YouTube videos and Instagram posts instead.

Give us all a break hey!

You make a good point Shuri but I would argue (for myself) that the fact it is illegal is not really the reason why I wouldn’t steal someone’s golf clubs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top