as i said, it was just a thought.
something like the UN-Charter was mentioned by me, cause this charter would be also voluntary, and there would be no prosecution (i know most ppl like to see if someone is prosecuted, but that shouldn´t be the aim of the charter). "you can but you don´t have to" .



that was the style i thought about.

The signers of the charter

"accept that the rules of the charter will start as soon as they sign it."

will not insult in the forums.
will solve campaign related problems within campaign.
will

this is still open for discussions, about the charter itself or details

I would write the charter out...I have lots of free time to make it very clear and elaborate. I would give it to Mog, who would do the fancy hosting, and add it to his site. Another idea. Can we ask Req for a link to it from WOL?

What I am seeing in your charter Viva is to protect people who use bad sportsmenship from being singeled out in the forums.

Why does the forum have to include

will not insult in the forums.
will solve campaign related problems within campaign.


What I see here is that if you cheat and I call you a cheater then I am breaking the charter, but you are not. That dont work. Calling you a cheater is not insulting..... if your cheating.

I'd prefer knowing if somebody is a punkass and uses his freinds to spy on you and has his clanmate show up with troops to force your withdrawl from his castle. That way when I play that person again I can make sure I got allies to help me too. Or at least I know what to expect. Like when I make a NAP with a player and he builds OP's and walls around my enemy and accuses me of nap breaking when I attacked them, yes that has happened to me.

any charter that any member of FSA will agree to will have to prohibit cheap tactics in game play and protect our right to publicly accuse the cheater.

Well said BigAmigo

When I get around to it, I'll load a screenshot of IMO one of the "meanest flank gang attacks" anyone ever could have endured, but there's just one problem;
where the blood spots are, my word will have to be taken that I had some descent sized armies left that had just repelled my first agressor who I might add was not a party to an intentional "gang attack".
Apparently my neighbor to the northeast just was unable to resist a sweet opportunity and I didn't have a NAP with him so my left flank got obliterated.

I'm not really going to show the shot but believe me, I do have it, except if I really didn't trust that my northeast neighbor would not attack my flank, a really smart person would have thought to make a BEFORE SHOT to be able to prove the AFTER SHOT.
Who does that?
Who would have taken a BEFORE SHOT?
What a way to have to play (i.e. like Dick Tracy, Sherlock Holms and Clarence Darrow all together) ... NOT to implicate anyone but just to protect oneself from the "Magna Charta".
No one will get prosecuted but I wonder if anyone would just get ostrocized without knowing why or being able to tell his side;
and some folks like myself prefer no defence when they know that they have no substantial proof to verify their story.

TR

I´m writing from my point of view, and as mentioend these were just ideas. If more ppl take part in the development of the charter, it will represent more views and more aspects, and it has to leave some out if the majority thinks they´re wrong.

Viva
to be honest, I have always valued your opinion and I do believe that the idea of a "charter" is idealistically a good one. I have pasted my attempt to propose "ground rules" in "fast 7" here that follows:

"Ok ... here's what I propose and all except the first two might need a majority vote (i.e. I'm willing to include "no gangUps" as a definite "NoNo" but I don't know how to enforce it).
Anyway, I'm really more concerned with some less obvious questionable tactics like for example I like to try to claim any unclaimed resources I see. I don't look to make NAPs necessarily (i.e. this is a war game but usually I will accept a short NAP and I try to specify that war can commence anytime after the turn the NAP ends.

I have recently decided that there is no dishonor helping to clean up the unclaimed resources of a quitter or an inactive player. I mean honestly ... why should any player step aside to allow another player to claim all the resources and castle of someone who has quit or gone inactive, just because he discovered it first and started claiming the territory first?

If the player won the territory by defeating an active opponent, that's different and I think it is dishonorable to start claiming resources from a battlefield while a player is busy fighting a war.
However, because I believe that once a player gains a second castle, he has a definite advantage of troop production and gold income;
I don't feel that it should be necessary to extend to that player extra turns to make himself ready for a second opponent.

I have always been of the opinion that a player should have been prepared for the possibility of a second opponent when he first took up the *sword of agression*.
That's why I leave some defences behind me and as I advance so that I don't have to negotiate with other players for time to recuperate.
I'm not a good diplomat.

a) no "multiies"
b) no "bug exploiting"
c) no "gangUps"
d) all unclaimed resources can be claimed by anyone except no claiming unclaimed resources off of a battlefield of two active players
(i.e. if they are from a quitter or an inactive player I think first come first serve should me the rule)";
and that doesn't mean that because someone got there first that he cannot be honorably attacked (i.e. unless he happens to have a NAP with the attacker).

Anyway I took the liberty to make two spelling corrections and I added the last statement after the final quotation mark (i.e. preceded by the semi-colon). Again these were just proposals ... not necessarily acceptable to all as I don't expect that they would all necessarily be acceptable in any "charter", but they are proposals of the way I like to play and I would definitely want them possibly included in any "charter" in spite of the fact that some senior players may not like some of them. I realise that some of them may get voted down but "nothing ventured, nothing gained".

The biggest problem as I see this is that most of us have our ideas of honorable play and I would like to present one such idea. I think there may be several players who think it is not fair to enter another territory for the purpose of claiming any unclaimed resources including resource piles. Some folks who are about to make an early surprize attack on another neighbor but who have not yet initiated hostilities might find it especially bothersome if another neighbor is pilfering inside their opposite border.
If war has not yet commenced, why should anyone concern themselves with the borders of someone who coincidently happens to be about to violate the borders of someone else by making a surprize attack on that person and with whom they have no NAP?

[cont.]

TR

Another big problem with this is that I think most of us have had game experiences with others that we look forward to resolving more favorably in the future for ourselves. Are we supposed to just discard all that good competitive spirit?

Again in conclusion although I do think this is "idealistically a good idea", I think there are as many problems with it as we have seen "forum flame wars" in the past over everything from "NAP breaking" to entering an unfinished building and becoming invulnerable to attack. I think it would definitely need to be left open for amendments and even appeals for past rejected proposals, but I do think we would argue over this long before any argument was settled by it.

PS:
Yes I know the "unfinished building bug" has been fixed.

TR

I am assuming that there is a small minority of people here who would even want something like this. I know I am sick of having so few people press their ideals of how to play the game on me.

now this idea of a charter to 'obay the rules because there isn't a mod to make you obay' is crap and trying to add in how you want everyone else to play with it. Seriously who would sign it other than those who want everyone else to play by their rules and not the rules the game creator has laied in front of us?

savetuba does have a good point ...
this is not our game to take liberties concerned with trying to apply extraneous rules created by members to members.

PS:
I do think we need about five "forum foremen" though.
I nominate the following:

Genghis Bob
Hwatta
Fanatic
Bloody_Wasteland
and of course
Mog

TR

Lod? POD?

okie...i guess its time for me to make some speech here...hehe

i didnt totally disagree this idea now as i was when i first reading a few first posts...
i did felt that this is a very bad idea at first but if implemented right...it`ll be a good one...
let me continue with why...

at first...
I felt its so bad cause its like making the game totally controlled and there wont be any natural reaction or sort. For an example of a more "real life" situation, its like a god makes human with no thinking and all the world will be peace but with no emotion of course. You wont know what is happy if you dont know what is sad. You felt that a mere small things will make u happy when u once suffered a lot. That`s the point there....

then....
I felt this game indeed need a bit of changes. Too many gangbangs and "misunderstood" had happened and although i didnt really know the real story, this even involves a lot of the top player in this game(i`m not referring to the recent sugar-rog war but i did indeed last time saw a lot of this things happens). So, what was this charter supposely going to consists of?

I`m thinking that a very "general rule" should be implemented such as the rule where everyone already knows which is no gangbanging and such. Ya..ya....u might say its all said in TR`s post...but here`s what i think.
We did indeed "know" this ethic code but did really everyone knows that? So put somewhere obvious where we can make sure everyone knows it. A very detailed code will actually make this game boring(where we wont have a bust up between two players-i indeed choose to have this things happens rather than not,that`ll actually make this game more lively-u lived in reality you should very well know there are a lot of types of people).

I have a few other stuffs to tell here but i think i`m gonna post another one at a new post as it wasnt really related to here...
One thing i must stress out here is that make some type of forum of diplomacy or such in each game,that will at least make the game communication better. The forum should consists of player`s nap and enquiry and such..you name it.
Of course,another code will then have to be implemented for that forum - Doesnt visit it at your own risk..
When others communicate and the victims dont,then the victims will not be trusted more than if he does...i suppose.

I`m not really good in expressing my thinking as i came from malaysia(i`ll not elaborate on that...lolz and i`m not talking about my language...)...i`m just bad as expressing my ideas. So i really hope you guys understand what i`m trying to say here.


*edited*
oh and if those that doesnt sign this thingy will surely being treated as hostile and will most probably got attacked first-this being another reason it`s controlling the player to "must sign" it.

Last Edited : Thursday, 14 April 2005 - 13:40

Hmmm.....
Another thought...
For experienced players, I think gangbanging should be part of the fun. In real war it is like that. The country that wins the war may win not because they are the biggest, but because they have powerfull allies. I hate seeing level 70+ players complain about being gangbanged by 2 or 3 newbies. If you have gotten up to that rank, you should expect to be attacked by many players, as they fear that you will attack them, so you ally against them. I strongly agree with a forum charter, but a gangbanging one could get a little fuzzy. Is it fair if 3 1:1 newbs attack Beovipes? I would say so. Losing might calm the egos a little bit, eh?

new players cant play in the same games as 61+ players.

Well again there are the issues of "formal permission and enforcement" which make this "idealistic" but not "practical".
I agree that I'm not going to participate in anything that may not be acceptable and/or officially approved So as far as I'm concerned for now we can only discuss the fine details of the issues that are causing some hostilities among us.

For example there is the issue of extending time to recuperate to a potential opponent who has been at war and has captured an enemy castle
(I.E. KEEPING IN MIND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES TO THE GAME WHICH IMO INVALIDATE SOME PREVIOUS IDEAS OF HONORABLE PLAY).
Let's examine this more closely in a scenario:
a) There is a NAP agreement between you and this potential opponent until turn 30 but it has been agreed that war between the two of you can commence on or after turn 31
b) According to the game news the player with whom you have been NAPPED has been at war sporadically meaning that he doesn't seem to have been meeting much resistance and he has captured his opponents castle on turn 25
Summation:
He has already had 5 turns to recuperate plus you give him an additional 3 turns keeping in mind that he didn't seem to meet much resistance according to the game news and there was every possibility that he gained a couple of barracks full of troops along with the castle.
He has had the income of two castles for 8 turns plus some extra captured resource facilities for possibly almost as long. He has had the opportunity because of his extra gold to now gain as much as a 2 tech advantage which will increase in the coming turns.
He builds a couple of size 30 stacks of catapults by approximately turn 55 and this being on a 12 player map proceeds to pound your defences from behind trees, mountains and his own defences.

Conclusion:
He defeats you.
Did he need the extra 3 turns you extended him?
My answer: No
Do I feel under certain circumstances that a player needs time to recuperate?
My answer: Yes
When?
My first answer: If the guy has successfully repelled and defeated an agressor he deserves at least 10 turns before someone else attacks him (i.e. after no one else attacks him for at least that long and IF he only has ONE castle).
My second answer: If time to recuperate is requested by someone who has been an agressor and has captured an opponent's castle and there has been no recuperation time already due to an already existing NAP agreement and the would be opponent does believe that the player requesting time has sufferred heavy losses and he is willing to extend time, then I agree that time to recuperate may be needed and extended.
How much time should be extended to recuperate?
My answer: Because of recent game changes and because there is every possibility that an opponent who has recently captured a castle may have also captured barracks that are full of troops and especially because he may also now add one of those barracks to his troop production, I don't feel that more than a 5 turn extension from the time he captured that castle is necessary so that where there has been a NAP and a castle capture has been made at least 5 turns before the conclusion of that NAP, I don't feel it is necessary to extend extra time to recuperate in that circumstance;
and I do still feel that even less turns or NO turns at all for recuperation can be extended especially where an opponent has at least three turns of traveling time before he even engages his opponent.
Again this is my opinion based on my experience and especially my attitude that a player who takes up the "sword of aggression" should be prepared to be aggressed and that attitude is based on my experience of having had to endure multiple attackers in many games.

[cont.]
TR

Last Edited : Friday, 15 April 2005 - 00:34

However, inspite of my experience, my opinion and my attitude I have not as yet NOT extended some time upon request to recuperate to an opponent. I do intend to change that practice as stated here because with present game conditions I believe it is not necessary and even in some circumstances a handicap to oneself for no good reason. For example, as mentioned, why should a player who is ranked as much as 20 or 30 experience points lower than his opponent be expected to extend "recuperation turns" to a supposed "superior opponent"?

PS:

Vote at www.mpogd.com/

TR

Last Edited : Friday, 15 April 2005 - 00:36

PPS:
Do I feel under certain circumstances that a player needs time to recuperate?
My answer: Yes
When?
My first answer: If the guy has successfully repelled and defeated an agressor he deserves at least 10 turns before someone else attacks him (i.e. after no one else attacks him for at least that long and IF he only has ONE castle).

*** I have had to revise the foregoing statements to include "and IF he only has ONE castle" because I'm sorry I do feel strongly about this and I do think a player with two castles together with the recent changes should have remarkable recuperative powers and even if he is the one who has been attacked and repelled an opponent, with two castles he should be recuperated and ready to meet another agressor after about 5 turns. ***
Don't forget this guy is probably getting well ahead on points also.

TR

Last Edited : Friday, 15 April 2005 - 12:15

I have had still another afterthought about these ideas I'm proposing (i.e. again I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with my ideas of right and wrong concerning fair gameplay, but I have stated some of my viewpoints and I very well may try to conform to them);
however, they are really just my views So please feel free to contradict them with your views if you so choose and possibly we can come to a mutual understanding (i.e. even if it is just to agree that we have different views but also have a right to play the game by the rules provided and hopefully with an added degree of ethical behavior).

Anyway my afterthought is that it is very possible for players to get "cute" by abusing rules of behavior (i.e. technicalities, loopholes so to speak and even possibly abiguous explanations where every detail has not been defined);
So again I say that this is a very difficult thing to do to get us all to conform to a certain mode of "honorable behavior".

For example, I have stated that a player with one castle who has been attacked and has successfully repelled an attack deserves at least 10 turns to recuperate (i.e. after no one else attacks him for at least that long);
but now I'm thinking that even that seems like too much time to have to give a guy and the possibility exists for a couple of players to feign attacks on each other just to keep others from attacking them.

PS:
Can anyone else think of any other possible "cutie pie tactics" that shouldn't be used?

TR

I've stated how I feel about a lot of issues here including a "hands off" respect for the resource facilities of combatants, but if a private message is required to gain that respect where there is no NAP, I may not make the private message request;
but if my facilities get taken because I didn't send messages, then why shouldn't I play the same way?

PS:
In Skirmish 62 NOW a player has quit and I have also stated how I feel about the territory of a player who has quit (i.e. IMO the territory is "up for grabs" until the last asset of it has been taken and beyond actually).

I don't feel that a player can expect other players to respect a claim made to territory of a player that has quit just because he got to it first (i.e. even where there is a NAP agreement). A NAP would only apply to assets of that territory already taken but where there is no NAP players can even make war over assets already taken as far as I'm concerned.

TR

I would suggest 1 person or the leader from the top 5 clans be delegated to work on this as opposed to randomly picking 5 people who may or may not be interested in doing this or even have a real clue as to what the real goal is to the project and what we are trying to accomplish here.but then again its merely my opion and after all i hardly play anymore or log in