Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- talk:decisions:battleresults [2012/07/09 22:00]
fegelein rant
+++ talk:decisions:battleresults [2020/11/08 04:02] (current)
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
  --- //[[people:fegelein|fegelein]] 2012/07/09 21:57//
+Both sides cheated in the battle of Fort Gorask which was not anulled so i dont see how the Giant Yurt one is any different. Both sides failed at communicating effectively about the time of the Desert battle so with no mongols and no fatalities it isint a battle at all but should still imo be counted as a soviet win
+ --- //[[Flakese]] 2012/07/09 22:46//
+battle of the desert
+Even as a win it shouldn't be given the same weight as other battles, also the battle did not take place as me and Sturm had planned it, it was supposed to have taken place in neutral territory
+----
+> calling off rules in mid-battle is the definition of cheating
+How so, both sides agreed, there shouldn't be a problem.
+> you don't have any evidence that we decided to cheat
+you can open chests in backups, they are full of potions and shit
+> YOU harrassed us
+I didn't even attack I was just standing there watching, it makes sense to scout out where you were going to be attacking from, even some of your guys were hanging about in the fort a few days before the battle. Only on the day of the battle did we attack them for it.
+> even you have admitted this yourself
+I did not admit this at all, I said it could have been possible, I wasn't out on the feild at that time. And only heard reports on teamspeak that you guys were wearing diamond armour.
+> only Kovio can start battles
+No, all mongol leaders at the time could start battles, but not accept them. This was done so we could do Merriport and other raids. You guys were setting the conditions, not us. So it required Kovio to give it the greenlight.
+> you can see that the Battle of Gorask and Fort Yurt were also only a small announcement here. But for these discussions there were tons of replies
+Thats because we knew it was happening and when we know something is happening we check the wiki. If there is no need to check the wiki we don't. The sieges were broadcast over the chat quite a lot upon the lead up. For your battle/raid there was nothing relayed to other members at all, only Sikandar. Surely if Sturm or whoever I was organising the battle with suddenly disappeared I would try contact others, rather than leaving a piddly little note on the wiki.
+> You had the time, green even replied to the topic in the discussion but there was no clear answer.
+I replied the day after, because when I came on all my shit in town was griefed and there were signs everywhere saying "SOVIET VICTORY AHAH" and other retarded shit. I, nor other leaders, hadn't the time to reply after Sikandar's disappearance. Its not hard to contact us, we don't [[people:mystialorelei|log off everytime you come online.]] And we aren't hidden, there are steamgroups, there are emails on the wiki, and there are other users with overlapping timezones.
+> Once in a war, after a maximum of three straight days of being asked for a sanctioned battle, a nation must make a choice
+This is a bullshit rule that needs to be changed, 3 days? Not everyone is a NEET here. After this shit is dealt with we need to fix this ASAP.
+> Checking the wiki regularly
+Checking once a week is regular, yet we only have 3 days to make a choice? Bullshit. I'm not saying that I shouldn't be checking the wiki, but asking for more than once a week is a bit demanding. I play here for fun, not to sift through wiki pages 24/7 just in case someone sneaks in a note somewhere.
+ --- //[[greenkitten@rocketmail.com|green kitten]] 2012/07/10 01:23//
+\\
+> Hell no, stop trolling caBst. These predefined 'rules' are just guidelines for the battle, it even says on the page **Nothing is official**.
+>**Nothing is official**.
+That doesn't mean that "there are no rules". It means that just because you put a planned battle guide in the article it doesn't necessarily become a law. They are there for people/nations to choose whichever they find more fitting. However this server works like common law, we act based on historic resolutions. Way before you came here we did have an official set of rules for battles nobody can break during a war. If is not there to see I means someone edited the original article ([[battles:rules_of_engagement|The International Rules of Engagement]]). Ask v1adimirr and YugoTexas. Even Sikandar should know that.  --- //[[caBst@irc.dev-urandom.eu|caBastard]] 2012/07/10 03:16//
+>This server works like common law
+Did the admins agree to this? Why exactly is the server ran with common law, what is the benefit?
+It has been like that since the times of AlphaBernd.  --- //[[caBst@irc.dev-urandom.eu|caBastard]] 2012/07/10 05:23//
+Have any admins explicitly stated that this was the system?
+> Way before you came here
+Are you trying to pull rank? I came here just after the creative map, I know about these old battle rules. They don't apply any more, there a different set of rules. We can choose which system we can use, there is one where it says anything goes. We swapped from one system to the other mid battle, so what? The battle was planned, both sides agreed to slaughter each other, and most of us stopped when asked by the mods, and the ones who didn't got short bans. No actual rules were broken, and when they were people got banned already.  --- //[[greenkitten@rocketmail.com|green kitten]] 2012/07/10 08:34//
+\\
+>Have any admins explicitly stated that this was the system?
+No Sinkandar. You can't expect us to have every single aspect written down. It's empirical. That's how it works. We started with a basic set of rules and when an unprecedented case showed up, we assessed it, make something out of it, and use it afterwards as a judicial base for future cases alike. That's how the server has run since AlphaBernd. If te3 wants to change it and have a ful documentation of each and every single law (which I proposed and he refused) like in Civil Law, it's up to him.
+\\
+>I know about these old battle rules. They don't apply any more, there a different set of rules.
+Nope. The planned battle guide lines are all based on the Int. Rules of Engagement which is still an active set of laws. The planned battle guide lines were never made rules by anyone. It's just an add-on of the original International Rules of Engagement.
+ --- //[[caBst@irc.dev-urandom.eu|caBastard]] 2012/07/10 16:25//
+So you're basically just making shit up. I don't really see the benefit of using a common law system on a small minecraft server, it is applying common law in a context it was not intended for and rather than iteratively improving the rules it in reality blocks improvement and creates situations where outdated rules are applied outside of the situations they were intended for with detrimental effect on gameplay. It also gives too much authority to the mod who sets the precedent and I don't think it is actually followed by the other mods in practice 100% of the time, and given the hands off nature of the admins I doubt you will ever be able to enforce your precedent on the others. And I'm not arguing that we should use civil law either. The server is small enough that the moderators should be able to tailor solutions to any issue that comes up on a case by case basis.
+Mods should practice flexibility and use common sense in enforcing the rules, not create systems which allow for rules lawyering and abuse.
+Also, me and green agreed to have the warscore at 2:2 now t. fegelein
+I think that is a good idea though I won't be able to make the battle (I am only a vassal anyway), the war has kind of lost its purpose, it was originally supposed to be a respectful conflict ending in an alliance between the warring parties.