http://www.eestats.com/primary/country/158

HA!
BILL DANGER

yep, report to mod (red x).

I don't think that was intentional...I saw that ans messaged them warning them about coordination and they didn't realize they were violating the rules...I know many say "ignorance is no excuse" however it is a shame to have a couple people deleted for a mistake.

That's not teaming, that's you getting into a war with two people. There's a difference.

I'm a huge supporter of deleting people for coordination and I'm very happy the mods put in a rule against it. Please don't be a baby that tries to use that rule to get people deleted just because you got in more than one war.

I'm looking at it now and this seems like an absurd claim.

#81 hit you on the 23rd and you retaled. He tried to hit back on the 24th and bounced a couple ABs and a SS.

Phantasm hit you on the 25th. You hit back on the 26th and because you weren't in GDI, he then hit you with a bunch of missiles. He then moved on.

#81 came back and bounced a couple SS and then broke through with one on the 28th. No sign of Phantasm for 3 days at this point, when you then hit Phantasm with a PS and a blocked CM and he returns to hit you some more, while #81 continues to hit you.

So because, while #81 was attacking you, you hit Phantasm with multiple attacks, and he came at you, you're trying to claim coordination. That's so stupid.

Additionally, #81 and Phantasm have previously attacked EACH OTHER, and Phantasm is using GS attacks and #81 hasn't used any.

BLID, THERE ARE THINGS BILL IS NOT ALLOWED TO TELL YOU HERE THAT YOU CAN'T SEE WITHOUT A SPY OP (ONE THING, AT LEAST)

HOWEVER, TO SAY THEY AREN'T TEAMING IS ABSURD.

#81 HIT BILL. BILL RETALIATED ONCE. #81 THEN FAILED A FEW AB, MESSAGED BILL APOLOGIZING, AND BILL LET IT DROP RATHER THAN HITTING HIM AGAIN.

YOU'VE GOT IT A BIT WRONG REGARDING WHAT TRANSPIRED BETWEEN BILL AND #120. 120 HIT BILL.. BILL RETALIATED WITH ONE PS. 120 HIT BILL WITH SEVERAL CHEMS. BILL STORED TURNS, THEN HIT BACK WITH AB, MISSILES, AND A PS. 120 WAS ONLINE WHILE BILL WAS DOING THIS, WHICH IS PROBABLY MAKING IT A BIT MORE CONFUSING TO TELL WHAT'S GOING ON HERE...

HOWEVER, AS SOON AS BILL FIGHTS BACK AGAINST NUMBER 120, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN #81 IS BACK, RUNNING DESTRUCTIVE ATTACKS WHICH GAIN HIM NOTHING... *AND FOR NO REASON* THERE HAD BEEN NO RETALITION FROM BILL FOR THE MULTIPLE SS #81 ATTEMPTED ON THE 28TH. WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE IT IS THAT ON THE SAME DAY BILL FINALLY LANDED A FEW PUNCHES ON #120, A FEW HOURS LATER #81 IS THERE WITH A BUNCH OF BR AND MISSILES?

THEY'RE WORKING TOGETHER TO DESTROY A PLAYER WHOM *THEY* BOTH PICKED A FIGHT WITH.

ONE MORE THING....

NOTICE, I HIT #81, WITHOUT ANY ACTION BETWEEN ME AND #120 THIS RESET... WHAT HAPPENS? #120 BLOWS ALL HIS TURNS GSING ME.

NO, THEY AREN'T WORKING TOGETHER. OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE *GOOD* AT WORKING TOGETHER BEFORE IT IS CONSIDERED AGAINST THE RULES?

He's not in GDI and he's battling with newbs. Trust me, newbs ROR all the time.

The fact that one guy was already attacking him when he went back at the second guy, and brought the second guy back in, makes it hardly look like coordination to me.

Like, #81 was coming at him and messing with him. I know he didn't start it, but that was the case, right?

Phantasm (#120) had already in the past shot all his missiles at him for a retal, because Bill didn't join GDI, and this is what happens between non-GDI newb countries ranked 175.

So #81 is messing with Bill, and #120 Phantasm hasn't touched him in 3 days after that initial barrage of missiles. Bill goes back and pokes #120 again and then claims coordination when again #120 fights back? Stupid.

I'LL BUY THAT 120 IS A NOOB. IF 81 IS A NOOB, HE'S GOT A COACH. NOT A *GREAT* COACH, BUT STILL.. NEVER SEEN A COMPLETE NOOB RUNNING A COUNTRY LIKE WHAT 81 HAD GOING.

BLID, YOU'RE MISSING SEVERAL KEY POINTS.

AFTER BILL FOUGHT BACK AGAINST #120, #81 SWITCHED FROM LAND GRAB ATTACKS TO BR. NOW WHY WOULD HE DO THAT? ESPECIALLY SINCE BILL NEVER EVEN RETALLED THE LAST THREE LANDGRAB ATTEMPTS?

AGAIN, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE OTHER EVIDENCE WE HAVE THROUGH SPY OPS (MINOR THOUGH IT MAY BE) BUT I'M SURE YOU CAN GUESS.

AND FINALLY, I REALIZE YOU WERE PROBABLY TYPING A POST AS I WAS MAKING MY 2ND POST HERE, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT WORKING TOGETHER, WHY IS #120 GSING ME..... WHEN I HAD DONE NOTHING TO HIM UP TO THIS POINT. I HAD NOT EVEN SPIED HIM. UNTIL THESE TWO MADE IT SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS THAT THEY WERE WORKING TOGETHER BY BOTH PARKING LOTTING BILL, I WAS FOLLOWING SERVER RULES AND STAYING OUT OF THIS.

Not sure if you just admitted to cheating by getting involved in a war because someone else parking lotted your buddy. Either way, #120 is GSing you because you have a matching name with the guy he's at war with, you're probably allied to the guy he's at war with, because he's a newb who wars people, and because you didn't join GDI for some reason. He can op random people if he feels like it. This is what happens to people that don't join GDI.

So your reason to think this is coordination is because a guy had already been attacking Bill, and then moved on to using BRs on Bill? That's a stretch and a half. He hit Bill, Bill retaled, he fought back but failed, then 4 days later - when Bill had NOT received any attacks from Phantasm for 3 days - this guy came back for more. How does this prove coordination to ANYONE? And then Phantasm didn't get BACK involved until Bill attacked him. I'm starting to wonder about you guys.

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU CAN'T SEE THIS, BLID. DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF AXE TO GRIND AGAINST ME OR BILL?

WHAT SHOWS COORDINATION (IN MY OPINION) IS THAT #81 SWITCHES TO USING BR (AND BTW UNLOADING EVERY MISSILE HE HAD) AGAINST BILL WITHIN HOURS OF BILL'S ATTACK ON #120.

WHAT SHOWS COORDINAION (IN MY OPINION, AND I'M SURE IN THE OPINION OF EVERY PERSON HERE CAPABLE OF LOGICAL THOUGHT) IS THE FACT THAT WHEN I ATTACK ONE, THE OTHER RETALIATES AGAINST ME WITH EVERYTHING HE CAN.

WHAT SUGGESTS COORDINATION (IN MY OPINION) IS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ONLY AVAILABLE VIA SPY OPS, WHICH I CAN'T SHARE WITH YOU.

YOU'RE REALLY REACHING WITH THE BIT ABOUT PHANTASM ATTACKING ME BECAUSE I'M ALLIED TO HIS ENEMY. HE NEVER EVEN GAVE ME A GLANCE UNTIL I HIT HIS BUDDY.. THEN BLOWS EVERYTHING HE'S GOT ON ME. HMM.. PATTERN? BILL HITS PHANTASM, HIS BUDDY BLOWS EVERYTHING HE'S GOT ON BILL. I HIT PHANTASM'S BUDDY, PHANTASM HITS ME.. WOW! THIS IS REALLY HARD TO SEE!

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE STUPID, SO I HAVE TO THINK YOU'RE JUST REFUSING TO ADMIT BEING ABLE TO SEE THIS.. AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY. WHATEVER.. GRIND AWAY.

AND YES, BTW. IF TAKING OUT ONE OF THE TWO PEOPLE TEAMING UP AGAINST YOUR ALLY IS CHEATING, THEN I'M CHEATING. PURPLE ME. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN. I WON'T STAND BY AND WATCH AS MY BROTHER IS TEAMED UP AGAINST ON A SOLO SERVER.

THIS MUST BE THE OTHER FACE OF DANGER!

I LIKE YOU BETTER ON AT!!! |-| A !!!

LOOKING INTO THINGS LIKE THIS. HA. I HAD TO GET OUT MY MICROPHONE SO I COULD TALK TO SAM I AM DANGER

PERHAPS YOU WILL FIND THIS FACE MORE TO YOUR LIKING? http://bit.ly/18TteX5

ALSO, BLIND, SAM SEEMS TO BE TRYING REALLY HARD TO BE POLITE, SO I WILL JUST COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY IT: YOU SOUND LIKE A fluffING MORON.

:)

HAVE A SWIRVEY DAY!
BILL
CAUTION: MAY CAUSE INFLAMMATION

yeah im not very smart

IT'S OK! WE ALL HAVE OUR SHORTCOMINGS AGAINST WHICH WE MUST STRUGGLE DAILY!

MINE IS A BIT OF A SHORT TEMPER.

HA!
BILL

WHY IS EVERYONE TYPING WITH CAPS LOCK ON? IT MAKES KITTIES CRIES!

BECAUSE DANGER DO NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO COMPREHEND IF WE WRITE WITHOUT CAPS!

Just try typing like this, and you will see you`ll get no reply because it`s like another language for them.

CAPS LOCK IS FOR GIRLY MEN. REAL MEN USE THE SHIFT KEY OF POWER!

TYPING WITH CAPS LOCK ON MAKE KITTIES CRY? FINALLY..... NOW MAYBE MY FOOT CAN GET SOME REST :P

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!

PLEASE PLEASE TELL ME THAT IS A REN AND STIMPY REFERENCE!

EITHER WAY.. HA!

I WANT TO YELL THE ANGRY WORDS!!

RED X IS THE ULTIMATE JUDGE AND JURY.... BURN IN HELL CHEATORZ!!!!

LOUD NOISES!!!!!

SORRY BILL_DANGER THAT WAS A REFERENCE TO ANCHORMAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pdWAcK6Eh8

THE PRIMARY SERVER BRINGS THE WORSE OUT OF DANGER!!!

So what's the outcome?

they weren't deleted so i guess the outcome is i was right?

BLID IS ALWAYS RIGHT. EVEN WHEN HE`S WRONG!!!

P.S: ALMOST ALWAYS

see tduong's sig!

to busy to look for it ? What does it say ?

http://www.earthempires.com/forum/post/363870/perm haha

Hey, where's that idiot?

I'm going to go ahead and drop the caps here in an effort to be less confusing.

If things stand as they are now, then yes, it would appear that what #81 and #120 did is not considered to be against the server rules. It would also appear that what I did in response to what they did was not against the server rules, as I have not been deleted either.

This would, believe it or not, be an outcome with which I wholeheartedly agree. I'm of the belief that the "solo server" purists have taken things a bit too far. Folks should be allowed to defend their in-game allies. If someone attacks your formal ally, be it your defense, research or intel ally, they are indirectly adversely affecting you as well, and you should be free to respond. I also don't think that continuing to modify or eliminate ally types in order to create a more pure solo server is a good idea. One of the things I always enjoyed about this game since its very beginning was the fact that you could use your ability to communicate and get along with others to your advantage... but I'm getting a little off the subject.

Back to the point, I don't believe this matter is decided yet. After speaking to one of the game admins last night, it seems that there is some disagreement among the admins themselves as to what the "solo" server rules actually are, and as to what constitutes teaming. Some believe what I stated in the paragraph above this one. Others believe any teamwork at all should be illegal. And just to confuse things even more, I was of the belief that the rules were that any teamwork was illegal.. not that it SHOULD be, but that it was, and I was following those rules until two players teamed up against Bill.

If ANY teamwork is illegal, then numbers 81 and 120 should be deleted, and so should I. That would also be an outcome with which I am perfectly fine. As long as things are consistent, and we get some answers on what the rules are (and consistent, speedy enforcement of those rules in the future). I believe the rules SHOULD be closer to the first case I laid out, but I thought the rules WERE closer to the second scenario. And if the rules ARE more in line with the second scenario (absolutely no teamwork whatsoever, ever) then I'd hope that in the future, two players - whether they're noobs or not - would be swiftly deleted if they work together to parking lot another player.

For me deleting because of teaming and coordination is pure fluff. I have been deleted for that on express and i wasn`t even at quilt.

To get purple for teaming - and to get the same color for something else ( let`s say hacking into people private data, but this can be extended to any blatant cheating that happens on the servers ) is pure fluff.

I think people being caught coordinating should be blocked to play for like ( don`t know, depends on server ) 500 worth of turns in time.

Block 500 turns? might as well just get deleted.

I think on solo servers you should be allowed to defend for your in-game allies. They are called allies for a reason. "A state formally cooperating with another for a military or other purpose" Like what sam_danger said, having your DA being bullied causes you to lose turrets as well. As it stunts your allies growth, he will be soon not be able to defend you as well. As a defence ally, you should be able to try to help him out by grabbing his attackers telling like "hey, dont bully my def ally, I still need him to grow so he can defend me well in the future"

Of course, helping should be capped to a certain extend, you dont go berzerk and spend all your turns everyday AB-ing or GS-ing him everyday. But then again, its hard to point where this 'certain extend' stands to.

i sorta agree with you post ( except for the first sentence ).

However, if they are going to allow that, people will just team up under the alliance flag. I don`t see that as a solution.

A block followed by a delete seems good enough for me.

I don't really agree with you guys. You're saying if someone attacks a res. or def. ally it hurts you, and yes, sure, it does a little bit. But spending a dozen turns ABing or BRing the guy who hit your ally hurts you a lot more. Giving up netting to wade into a war hurts you way more. And it's not fair to the guy trying to battle with your ally, either. Back when Reroll still played, he once accidentally forgot to join GDI. He hit some guy once, and that guy AND his two allies each sent about 10 missiles at Reroll. Would you argue that's something that makes sense or should be allowed?

I don't know if Sam/Bill should be deleted because I don't know what they did. Coordination should be deleted for, but, just like I said about the two countries Bill complained about in the opening post, the mods should tread with care. If these players attacked both of you, both of you have the right to fight back. If you just go all "RAWR, you attacked my ally!" and charge in, that'd be different.

I've seen someone on Tournament do annoying things like RORing and multitapping two guys, and then getting them deleted for both going to war. Huh? So now when I hear claims of coordination I think it's important to make sure the countries really are coordinating and not just both attacking the same guy for their own reasons. Another example, in Express a couple sets ago, somebody was solo killing players. He killed Vic and then he killed a buddy of that clueless guy Cerberus. Vic restarted and began attacking the guy who killed him, which makes perfect sense. Cerb then teamed with his buddy's restart to run a joint kill run on the guy. Vic obviously shouldn't have been deleted just for doing attacks on a guy who killed his first country (though he was before being reinstated). Cerb and his buddy obviously should be deleted, for doing a two-man kill run on a guy who was solo playing. That's the definition of coordination.

In fact, it's funny, but the truth basically comes out to the exact OPPOSITE of what you guys are saying about protecting allies. If I see some guy doing top feeds on a bunch of random players and say "what a fluff, I'm going to top feed HIM!" or if I see a random guy doing solo kills and say "ha, he thinks he's tough, watch this, I'm going to kill HIM!" then I'd be doing nothing wrong. It's only when you get involved to HELP someone that you're actually coordinating. I mean, look up the word coordinate in the dictionary. So in conclusion, three simple rules:

1) you can do whatever random stupid attacks you want
2) if someone does stupid attacks on you and messes with you, you have the right to fight back
3) it's when you do attacks for the purpose of helping someone else that you're coordinating, which is against rules

oh yeah and of course leeching jets or tech is bad and should be coded against. if you take two top players, and one of them has an o-ally with 10m jets always at home, the other guy will have NO CHANCE of competing against that player. absolutely zero. that kind of thing makes it more important to have leeches than to be a better player which is obviously not correct for the game

I REFUSE TO DROP THE LETTERS OF POWER, EVEN IF I AM GOING TO TRY TO BE RATIONAL FOR A MOMENT!

I SAY EITHER ALL FORMAL RELATIONS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM SOLO SERVERS, *OR* THE RULES SHOULD BE ADJUSTED AND CLARIFIED SO THAT ALLIES ARE FREE TO ACTUALLY BE.. WELL.. ALLIES (AND ON THE SAME NOTE, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DEFENSIVE ALLIES WHY NOT OFFENSIVE)?

I ACTUALLY MESSAGED SAM PRIOR TO JOINING PRIMARY THIS RESET ASKING HIM "CAN WE ALLY? IS THAT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED 'TEAMING?'" SO I DON'T TAKE THIS STUFF LIGHTLY, AND THAT'S A BIG PART OF THE REASON WHY I GOT VERY VERY ANGRY AT BEING GANG-BANGED.

BILL

D-allies/I-allies aren't leechable because they work all the time. O-allies are leechable because jets out on PS do not help at all. I would like R-allies to be removed as well, from solo servers if possible. O-allies are highly unbalanced in the hands of a strong player.

Allies in game are only for in game benefits provided by the pact. If you try to get any more advantages out of it than those provided by being in-game pacted, then that is coordination. If you try to game the system so only one side of a pact gains any benefit (as is the case for O-allies or R-allies), then that is gray area to be determined if there was any coordination, or if the other party was really just clueless.

I think this is right. You should be able to defend your in game ally. I meet a lot of noobs in the solo server and occasionally they will wind up being abused by some half baked veteran player and I feel the need to step in to stop the destruction of my noob allies game by an advantage seeking, scum sucking pig of a player and I should not be deleted for this since he IS my in game ally.

Straight up.

(OK, fine, I'll drop caps too, because sometimes it hurts my brain to read all caps LOL)

This brings me back to my question of why have pacts at all if it is truly intended as a SOLO server? Any system that leads to a "gray area," where you have to start trying to decipher intent, is ripe for abuse in the worst case or misunderstandings in the best case.

I would say any alliance type can be abused depending on how you want to define "abuse." Intel allies can see each other's military for easy land-trading. Tech can be "leeched." Defense.. See below for more thoughts on that.. But isn't the point of defensive alliances to counter offensive alliances (which don't exist on Primary)?

This has boggled my mind since my first exposure to a solo server: I just can't grok how you can say "no teamwork" but then allow people to form pacts of their choosing whereby their militaries directly help each other. Unless I blindly select a random defensive ally, I am using another player's results to bolster my own. We all know that experienced players ally with each other on Primary.. why? Because they know that they don't have to worry about a noob defensive ally with all jets, etc. Isn't that giving them an advantage over the noob who has no def allies or random crappy def allies?

BILL

I don't know what you mean by land trading re: intel pact. You can't land trade with your allies as far as I know and mods have said they would delete here for organized land trading. Also re: intel allies you can kind of look at how many jets they sent out in an attack and who they hit to try to figure out targets but that's nothing anyone cares about.

The functional use of d-allies is to offset the +50% power of a planned strike. Another side effect is that they offer a few branches of decisions re: whether to alliance spy, whether to spy on allies, etc. that makes grabbing more interesting.

It wouldn't be terrible to remove all alliances from the solo games but I think the d-ally function is pretty important vs. PS attacks and alliances do get people talking which makes this numbers-based game a little less atomized, which is useful in a way.

Hmm Ok that makes sense.

I GUESS I SHOULD GO BACK TO ALL CAPS!
HA!

BILL

whats considered as organised land-trading?

thats for mods to decide.

blid, you and I are somewhat in agreement here. Your list there is what I *thought* the rules were on this server, and I was abiding by those rules until it became evident that others were not.

Now, as far as how I think the rules should be, that's a lot different. I think extreme focus on making this server a test of individual skill needs to be reexamined. I'm not suggesting that every change to primary should be changed back, but if we're going to have allies at all, then let diplomatic skill continue to play a part in how well you finish.

Some guy is able to talk people into letting him leech tech? So be it. That's the advantage he gained over others via superior diplomatic skills. Some guy is able to find O allies who leave their jets at home a lot? So be it. I can see worrying about somebody gaining an advantage by cheating, but when people are gaining an advantage by doing something that anybody could do, without cheating.... I just think people worry way too much about that kind of stuff here. And yes, I realize I'm in the very tiny minority on this. I wanted to play this server anyway, even though the rules aren't exactly how I think they should be. If I thought the rules were just totally abhorrent, I wouldn't be playing this server at all.

What I really don't like is trying to remove the consequences for taking warlike actions from this *war game*. If you want to steal the land other people have obtained, that is perfectly within your rights (and its what keeps this game interesting)... but for you to then be protected from the victim.. to say "you can only hit me back with what I hit you with, even though I know its impossible".... well, that's a little ridiculous. and arrogant. and hypocritical. and to be honest, boring. Might as well create a no-attacks server, and call it the Mathz Server.

I like to play all x, because I don't like the hypocrisy that is inevitable with land grabbing. Again, I know I'm in the tiny minority here, but... every change that protects the land grabber from his victim also hurts me. Every time one more consequence to the grabber's actions is eliminated, my all-x becomes less competitive. Not to say that I'm all that competitive to begin with, but let's say there was a GOOD all-x player... why should he get hurt just to protect the grabber?

Anyway, I've gotten way WAY off subject now. Bottom line, blid, if the rules you listed are indeed the rules of this server, then numbers 81 and 120 should be deleted. If those rules are STRICTLY observed, and you are not even allowed to assist someone against others who are breaking the rules, then I should also be deleted, and Bill should not. If the rules are not quite as harshly anti-teaming as I thought, then all four of us may be allowed to fight this one out to the end. We'll see what the outcome is.

SAM