[comment moved to a different thread]

How about this, just roll back the 'spirit of the server' rules. No multies, no in-game hate speech, no . . . well - thats about it actually. Team was the wild west before, and as much as I hated the TSO abuse, it was still more fun than this. Its still balls easy to game the system within the rules, so why not just admit the 'spirit' rules were a failed beta and punt.

If someone is straight up running multis and fluff, yes, that's cheating. And yes, we will and do catch them. But that's not what we're talking about here at all.

Moderator/Behavior rules should be clear enough that we don't have to enforce them, because people will follow them and think twice before breaking them. Then, and only then, should we step in. That's what we want, that's what you want. So stop fluffing about moderator activity and give me suggestions.

That's one option. Another option is to get rid of Team altogether. We don't want/need another alliance server. If you want the true wild west, you can play in primary or express.

Not saying it's a completely terrible idea, but the entire reason this whole fluffstorm started was because a LOT of people did not like how things were. There were tons of people leaving the server then, just as there are now. That's not really a net-positive no matter how you look at it :/

If you look at all the past new clans. Ask yourself, why did they leave?

It wasn't because of suiciders. It's because you have 5-member clans gangbanging you. You basically have 25 people who know each other on a server and a maximium of 5 new players join it as fresh meat. It's like a race to who will kill them first.

If you're new to the game entirely and you join TEAM, you're likely never to play EE ever again after one set. That atmosphere has to change if you want new players. If you're content with playing with the same 25 players every set, by all means keep the status quo.

Specific examples would be to (as stated before):
1.) In order to determine which countries are still at war, make one attack required per 72hrs (be it SS/PS/BR/AB/GS) so that other clans may know if two clans are still at war. Spy ops are not possible to read in news so that's why I make this suggestion.

2.) Make three attacks or more automatically defined as war. (3 attacks means any combination of negative spy ops & or SS/PS/AB/GS/BR). This does not mean a clan cannot have a 1hit:kill policy. The point of this rule is to protect 2 clans at war from 3rd party clans from excessive attacks.

3.) if a clan is to have a 1hit:kill policy it should happen within 72hrs. It doesn't make sense that because I LG you on day one that your clan can war me 3 weeks later while I'm already at war with a different clan.

4.) Make all untags defined as individual tags.

When I say 1hit:kill policy, there shouldn't be baiting a clan to hit you into a 2front war. For an example: If Tag A & B are at war, and Clan C LGs x2 on Tag B, then Tag B should be able to retal x2. (1:1 basically). Just because they retal x2 back, that shouldn't give the green light for Clan C to make a 2v1 on B.

If you remove rules all together-- then TEAM is no different than ALLIANCE.

Stop turning this game into a legal document. That fluff looks rediculious.

It also looks like a good way to hide from a real war.

Your problem of war tags hitting netting clans wasn't an issue when the server was allowed to police itself.

What are you suggestions Ford? Mod enforcement of the current 'vague' rules? Which 'vague' rule would you change? I want to hear your specific suggestions.

My suggestion is to revert all rules and let the server police itself.

The .ods arnt active enough to enforce the existing rules fairly, so remove the rules to even the field.

If the mods suddenly ly become effective enforce the rules on a case by case basis with the spirit of the server in mind.

i.e. people like you using the letter of the rules to defeat the spirit of the rules won't he protected.

Thr current rules really aren't that vague. As always. There situations that arise that are a case by case scenario

The majority of the people who do say they ar vague is because they came at us with outlandish scenarios that would only happen if they were planned out. Which isnt allowed anymore.

Its pretty god damn simple.

Team vs team.

No outside help

Police are allowed to police lgs

Dont cherry pick(case by case)

Lging at war teams ( case by case)

Untags are not protected in any way

One man tags are protected as long as we dont see anything to thehr contrary(we can view ALL past coubtries to determine whatever actions are deletable)

Despite what you think, even if I don't check on a daily basis, I DO read my PMs and take action when necessary. There were about 2-3 sets where I got NO messages, and didn't see anything worthy of taking action on in the mod tools. Just because we don't post here doesn't mean we're not active. The problem is when you guys sit here on the forums and fluff about people abusing the rules, but never report or message. So, for the most part, we/I HAVE been enforcing the rules when people actually bring it to our/my attention.

I think the current rules all have positive value. It just seems that, sometimes, the squeaky wheel gets most of the grease.

Elders has had the rules broken on them before. there was a time that we got blasted late in the set (4 or 3 days left i dont recall) by Drunksex because they were bored, while we were at war with someone else. We did not report them for the simple fact that I don't want to be known as the guy who got Drunksex deleted... because of future repercussions. We warred them next set and had fun... after that it all blew over.

I'd rather have fun with a challenge than whine to the referee... unless its somebody who i despise that is.

My query is this: Is it better for a mod to actively watch for infractions and catch them? or is it better for a mod to wait for someone to report or message before action is taken?

It's better for us to wait for someone to complain about it. Some people are ok with multi-front wars. If nobody thinks it's a violation of the rules and they're ok with what happened, then that's ok with me. It's when people DON'T want that interference that we should step in.

Do you think there is a squeaky wheel?

and how do you feel about mandatory tagup?

I think everyone agrees with mandatory tagup-- as do I. But that requires programming by Qzjul. An alternative could be to treat each untag as an individual tag. At least until it gets programmed.

Squeeky wheel gets the attention, not always the grease. If nobody reports something, how are we going to know about it unless we analyze every single war attack on a daily basis? That's a waste of time.

And again, just because someone reports something doesn't mean action is taken. There are many many times where people believe there is a violation and we disagree.


Tagups, I absolutely agree, but that's for qz to deal with. Above my paygrade, sadly :/

Why would we treat them as an individual tag? This is a team server, not meant for solo players. People choosing not to tagup makes no sense in the scope of this server, so we will not treat them the same as the players who do tag up.

there's another reason for having an actual tagup. If you have an untagged suicider killed, he restarts... where is he now?

if he's in a tag, you know exactly where he will be... in that same tag.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the mandatory tagups. Doesn't that mean everyone has to join a tag by a certain date?

Ah- ok. That makes sense Dissident.

Agreed. That was the reasoning behind treating 1-man tags as legit teams, and not providing protection for untags.

If two teams are in a legit war how is it fair for even 1 LG into either one, they lose any military at home making them easier to hit for the other side? that is damaging alone then on top doing demo's what if that person doesn't get online before the other team starts a kill run they do a military spy see his readiness is already down that saves them 7 turns easy right there.

Can someone explain how readiness works from a defending perspective? i don't want to give the wrong numbers.

all i know is that low readiness affects you as an attacker... but very little as a defender.

anything under 70% might as well be 70%

The lowest % you defend at is 70%. So even if your readiness is 20% you still defend at 70%. Demos affect more of an defender's attacking abilities when at war.

You lose turns to attack with with each demo. That's a big deal if you're a smaller clan or working with not as many players to attack with.

well if you are holding 5m troops or turrets and another tag demo's you that means the tag you are at war with only needs to send 3.5m troops or jets, thats 7 demo's saved and 10 cd's saved 17 turns minimum saved there.