A charter should be wrtten, if for no other reason but as a guide. If one chooses to follow it or not, fine. As savetuba said, keep your word.

Regarding enforcement: If you think you're being gangbanged, or someone has acted dishonorably, I say form alliances (formal or informal) and go after the offender. Share info with your neighbors on his troop movments, assets and try to make the immedate goal of him killing off. I'm currently doing this in one of my camps and it appears to be working.

Newbee with a vengance

Harley dearest angel,
why don't you play or log on so much anymore?
I do realise now that I haven't seen you so much lately.

Anyway those names were my nominations for "forum moderators". I know I called them "foremen" but it was just to play with the words "forum foremen". If you read from the beginning, you will realize that I don't feel very confident that signing a "Charter" would work (i.e. at least not without Req's formal approval);

but at the time there was a "monthly rant" that caused me to feel that our forum needed monitoring more than we needed a "Charter" and if you read you will realize that I got off on a tangent nominating possible foremen. Someone else nominated a couple others also and anyone could have nominated whoever they wanted to nominate.
IMO it is a matter of opinion as to who qualifies. I'm not in a clan as are not many others and I don't feel this has anything to do with clans (i.e. again I'm referring to the "forum foremen" or "moderators" which has to do will forum conduct more than honorable gameplay).

The nominations I made were based on my opionion of the honor, integrity and sense of justice of these folks plus I happen to know that they are quite often adversaries in the political threads so that I felt they wouldn't be able to play favorites very well. Most important as far as I'm concerned is their intelligence, sense of proper conduct in the forum and ability to analyse a dispute.
I don't think the leaders of the top five clans would necessarily provide any of that but like I said these were my nominations and by coincidence Mog was one of my nominees and he did get chosen.
I think he's doing a great job also.
I would like to also have nominated BigAmigo
and Sugarleo but then I might get banned.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 22 May 2005 - 01:40

Can we categorized games?
It does seem important to me that in the same game are a mix of folks who don't all play the same.

It seems to me that there can be at least three categories:
A) honorable
B) free for all
C) down and dirty

In all three categories there should still be NO multies or bug exploitation
but in "free for all" a player shouldn't expect declarations of war or time to make ready yet he can expect to be left to a one on one conflict only where players are evenly matched
whereas in "down and dirty" gang attacking would be okay,
just NO multies and bug exploiters.

Can we get players to rate themselves in a game as A, B or C? I mean to say if there are only two players willing to play at class A honorable but the rest can accept either B or C then why not play with players who are willing to take their chances and accept their fate?
This is getting very frustrating to get into a game, make every attempt to play honorable, even choosing a more adept opponent and then have the game spoiled by a player whose sense of honor seems to be non-existent.

TR

Last Edited : Saturday, 2 July 2005 - 09:02

What about classifying each game? That is, set each game to be designated as one of the three. So, for example, game 1 might be A, game 2 B, and game 3 class C. Anyone in a class A game would be expected to play honourably, and in a C game, anything goes. So if one's style of game is honourable, then go into an A game. Maybe that would stop all the complaints about foul play.

Well basicly that's what I mean and the C class game is easy (i.e. anything goes except multies and bug exploitation).
A division would have to be made between A honorable games and B free for all games though.
Basicly I think there are two questions that would have to be decided:

1) I only see recouperative time necessary for players who have knocked each other silly for several turns but made no gains and that can be in a class B game along with a non-interference clause for players actively at war
2) I do see that a player with two castles has an extreme advantage over a player with one castle so I think a one castle guy who is attacked by a two castle guy should be allowed to get help from an ally to defend only NOT to attack and that should be allowed in a B game also

However, that defensive alliance would NOT be allowed in a class A game and in class A games players would be expected to announce all initial attacks at least 5 turns in advance with a formal declaration of war plus they get time to make ready on request and always get time to recouperate even if another player looked like he was going to attack.
Seriously these class A guys will have to decide but I'm thinking I'm preferring the B and C games.

TR

GOOD GREIF! THIS IS STILL ACTRIVE? I see that most players are still in denial. Without req this game is dying. There isn't much that we few players can do. And a charter is only as good as those who follow it.