Are those tags allowed to kill that country together? Or are they going to be deleted based on the spirit of the server rules?

In that case no one may retaliate. The fluffry is allowed to go about freely so long as multiple tags are involved. Especially if those tags are TSO related.

I think they are allowed to kill that country together, just dont time it to be in the same 5 min window or something :P

note the "unless it's retals"

What martian says and what is being enforced seem to be different things.
Without talking to a mod first, any action will likely get you deleted. In fact I wouldn't even attempt performing any action to another country without a majority mod approval.

If the object is to defend my country, I don't care what other tags have done. I'm joining in when I see it.

i think the idea right now is, if the first tag starts killing it, the others are not allowed to join in.

yes, and dont do it on a weekend, cuz if they delete you for whatever reason and if they're away for the weekend, you lose turns

If it's a single ab against 5 different teams, what do you think the appropriate response is?

If there are no special attacks involved, only grabs, what do you think the appropriate response is? If it's one grab on several tags, or if it's multiple grabs on several tags?

why do you always assume it's only 1? would you prefer he says that 1 tag ABs the fluff out of 5 tags?

These are hypothetical questions. I'm asking people for their input here.

At what point does it cross the line from being a minor annoyance to a threat to the server(as you guys liked to talk about)? What is kill worthy? Where is this bright line in the sand that you all keep referring to, because nothing seems obvious to me.

If one country ABs the fluff out of several tags, I don't think any moderators will delete those tags for killing it. If they farm the fluff out of that country first, and THEN it retaliates with ABs, that's a different story. Speaking of which, what would the appropriate response in THAT situation be in your eyes?

Kill him, even if you started the war by farming him, you're now being AB'd and in a full war and the response to that is cripple or kill.

If one tag does it, there is absolutely no problem. If 2-3 teams all farm the fluff outta one country(or team), and they retaliate by throwing a storm of ABs around at the aggressors, what do you think the appropriate response would be? Is farming the hell outta one country considered an act of war?

You can't take away people's right to fully engage in battle with people who've provoked or entered battle with them, or what's the point of this game? The task of the mods is basically to analyze the responses people make and to determine if these responses are legitimately inspired by a provocation or if the true reason for the attacks is assistance of another tag. Mods can also look at whether multiple tags seem to be timing their responses or coordinating their responses.

That sounds like a rather gray area. I want specifics.

The farmed country would be within his right to cause nuclear winter on all the tags that farmed him. All the tags that farmed him, having now had their countries laid waste to, would all have the right to respond as long as they don't work together. The only possible violation I'd see by any of the parties here would be if the initial farming was coordinated but farming usually is done for netting and land gain purposes, not war purposes, so that doesn't seem that likely

i think anything can be kill-worthy.

i mean, some people only enjoy the warring part of this server, you can't delete them for enjoying the game.

but what is delete-worthy? because delete-worthy shouldnt depend on what's kill-worthy, otherwise it's very unclear-cut boundaries for that. you can't unify the retal policy, that would be retarded. though it would be good to agree on the delete policy.

i think the only thing that is delete-worthy right now is any form of collaborative killing. let me give it some thought.

As I stated it, the intention is quite clear, is it not? The rule itself is quite clear too. Grey enters the picture only when particular murky circumstances arise, which will happen at times, sure, but the rule, as always, is that the mods have the right to make decisions based upon their discretion.

this is what i would accept for deletion:

1. Tags are responsible for all actions of tagged members. Eg. if a member decides to suicide another tag, that tag is responsible to kill it or to continue the war that's been started. I think this can make team leaders choose more carefully what type of people they want on their team, and have fewer incidents.

2. If one tag assaults multiple tags, they are automatically off the mod protection list. Eg. anyone is free to kill/farm them in whatever way they wish. Assault here is defined as any named breach mentioned in each tag's policy. If that tag fails to comply with policies of multiple tags, then it's their own fault that they become fish food.

3. Tag policies should be stickied and kept updated on TT at all times. If there's a breach, the tag being attacked has to make a statement on TT within 24 hours of "war-type retaliation", eg. farm/kill status and clear reasons to be posted. That way, if you want the element of surprise, you can still have it so long as you explain that you're not breaking rules.

4. Otherwise, it's 1 tag vs 1 tag, unless if the war is arranged. If it's an arranged war, anyone outside making grabs on the war should be deletable, since there's not a lot of people around to police such wars.

Really? Based on our discretion? Many people apparently disagree with that.

Is landgrabbing considered to be warring? Is there a certain limit where it becomes warring?

Example of #2:

(received:punishment)

Tag B - 1:kill policy
Tag C - 4:perma farm policy
Tag D - special attacks:kill policy
Tag E - harmful ops:farm 72 hours policy

If Tag A (1 or more countries in the tag) goes and breaks all these policies, then these tags can carry out their proposed policies on Tag A without suffering deletion. Though anyone else trying to go under the radar would probably be given a free pass too, because if someone's gone and broken so many policies, they probably deserve it.

so here we can say, "mod protection is broken" if you breach the policies and gain a farm/kill status from more than 1 tag.

Well, if 5 countries from 5 different tags farm this guy from a tag of 5, this guy then retaliates with missiles and special attacks to these 5 countries. Does these 25 countries from these 5 tags have the right to kill the whole tag?

hsifreta, with #2 above, some tags(well 1 that I've noticed) have posted a 1:kill policy. So basically, if you hit them, you are considered at war and the rest of the server is free to join in?

That's what I'm asking.

landgrabbing can be a reason for war so long as it's stated clearly in their policy at the beginning of the set. eg. RoughSex has offered a 1:war policy, and would probably spend the whole set farming untags or exploring waiting for a war, and that's one way to play, so long as they state themselves properly, then that's the policy that they will follow.

you may choose less strict policies, eg. only 1 grab per country per set, or how many hours retal policies, or no topfeed policy (pls if you have this, state clearly what you consider is a topfeed), etc etc. so long as their policies explain what would gain you a farm/kill status, and its with respect to actions done onto said tag and not relating to allies, then it's good to go.

So 5 countries in 5 different tags farm 1 guy in a tag of 5:

1 - under condition 1, that's the actions of 5 tags and not 5 countries, as countries and tags are the same.

this guy missile/special attacks in return:

2 - depends on the retal policies of said 5 tags, if they are in compliance, then there should be no killing. if some of them do not like special attacks and only accept SS/PS retals, then those can take it to a farm/war level.

3- however, if they are farming a guy and breaching their own policies, then they "lose mod protection" and anyone can hit them.

So far, only one tag has posted a public retal policy. That tag was not qzjulsex, nor fluffsex, both of whom were involved in the earlier incident.

And you forget that untagged countries are considered to be a tag for the purposes of enforcing this rule. If that is the case, then farming multiple untagged countries means that those countries could band together and kill the tag that farms them(provided they posted a 1:kill policy according to your idea).

Okay cool, untagged = team for sole purpose of the serverrules..

So, i being untagged ATM declare that all untags are atwar with everyone on the server.

No, each untagged country is considered to be its own team.

Now, that that issettled. Can we get back tothe real problems of the game?

No

I publicly stated our policy untagged = war everyone

i dont see how untagged countries should be considered part of a tag. are they able to keep to a 5 country rule? are they able to come up with a retal/war policy? i think if untags are considered a tag, this could lead to a lot of abuse. seeing that untags aren't even allowed to have allies in this server, i think untags should be fish food from the start, and if any untags are killed or deleted, there should be no buzz about it. that should force everyone into tags whether they want to or not. if they create their own tag, that's fine. you can have 30 x 1 country tags, and that would allow the game to run as it should. otherwise, if you have 30 untagged countries and they do things to mess up the server together, you'd have a lot more worries.

as for only 1 tag posting public policies, exactly, they need to start doing it. that's my suggestion.

I publicly stated that that's not how the rule works. Please read martian's post.

I publicy state i dont play tje server :p

hsifreta, you can blame the smartasses who said 'Oh, no more 20 man megateams? We'll all just run untagged and coordinate together to circumvent the rules!'. That's why that addendum was added...

And if 30 untagged countries start to fluff with people together, then they will be deleted as well.

tella, i think you should make the addendum to be that untags have no right from the start. if they dont want to be farmed, and deleted unfairly, they need to join a team asap.

4. untags are fish food and cannot enforce a retal policy. if they assault multiple tags, they can be kill/farmed without question. if they group together (even 2 countries) to attack a single tag, they can risk deletion with no appeal.

Pretty harsh. You want us to dictate how people play the game? I thought that's why everyone was fluffing..

or have a standard policy for untags

What should that policy be? Who should decide it?

Personally, I'm for forcing tags on all countries, but we need to talk to qz about the feasibility of that.

no pants while playing

violators will be deleted

the server is already unfair to untagged countries, i dont see how saving mod efforts on untagged people is a crime. if you have 40 untagged countries, and you treat them all as single tags, it'll only serve as a permanent headache until mods give up enforcing any rules or solving any disputes.

we want to move forward with this server, not just try enforcing teams for a few sets then give up.

Me

Okay here's my gripe. Understand I am completely for forcing single team play. However, with that there has to be certain lines.

1. Moderation should not change the politics of a server. (Okay forcing a mega-team to act separately is changing politics some but I mean so long as a team is acting inside the rules.) I think this is being done fairly. TSO may still exist and group pact, or at least hasn't been deleted for it yet.

2. Moderation should not change the dynamics or policies of the server, be they standard or alliance specific. (Again so long as they are inline with the rules of the server. IE. No Cross-tag retals)
This is where an issue comes in already. I will use alliance server as a comparison for policies because it has many...
Every alliance will kill for 4 grabs. Many will kill for a single grab where all the land can't be recaptured in a single retal if ever. Now elvesrus was reinstated but the deletion happening in the first place and to the guy who was quad-tapped is a real issue.
At some point there will come a time a war is happening and outside teams may use this time to attack one of the warring teams. What will mods do then? They will likely delete the team hitting outside of war. What if said team had been farmed to hell and the team that did it jumped into war to hide from retals? So long as a team isn't joining in the kill runs, they should be left alone. This is another case where mods need to stay out of it. Teams will have friends, and said friends will watch their backs. I doubt there is a team that couldn't find someone to protect their tag from grabs while they are at war.

3. I absolutely hate the US Patent system, however it has one rule that should apply here. Either you protect the rule every time or you can't protect the rule. Meaning moderation needs to be applied the same way every time, or just give it up. Whether this is being done is yet to be seen, but I think it is a common belief among many that moderation is going to be applied with bias.

any special attack is death

any more than one landgrab, should be death

that is an appropriate response.

Symac, you can grab a country/team at war. You just can't farm them.

And with elves' case, I had warned him not to get involved in situations like that less than 24 hours before.

The only bias against TSO is that they seem to be the people most vocally against the rule and have attempted to think of ways to circumvent the rules. Thus, I will absolutely admit that they are facing stricter scrutiny than other teams.

Y'all should have given a longer look at qzjulsex clan than at elves. qzjulsex were hit once and went a kill runnin, elves was hit 4 times. Elves's motive was obvious, qzjulsex's motive was questionable considering this player had 4x tapped two other sex tags, but only 1x tapped them. You could make the case they were hitting on behalf of the other sex tags.

I don't know why elves was ever told 24 hours beforehand he couldn't attack someone who 4x hit him.

if someone's at war, and asks for both sides to be put on DNH. are they allowed to bring in police? and are police capable of policing 5 member teams? maybe we should stretch the retal grace period given teh differen dynamics of the server, retals up to 5 days to allow this to work.

so long as the whole server agrees on some norms, we can start making policies. politics of the server needs to be guided by mods, because we need to establish generally accepted rules on these boards for every new team that joins in the future.

im pretty sure 1A had a time where everyone were confused about retal rules and how to set them and reinforce them.