You still dont understand what the issue that is being discussed here really is. The issue is not treating supporters better over, non supporters. The issue is that today in battledawn, you have various rules outlined in the ToS. For any of those rules, there is no concrete punishment given. For example, take farming. Seth gives a 48 hour ban, Andrew throws out a 24 hour ban and Joe gives a perm ban (Hypothetically speaking). That is not right. For a particular offence, your ban times SHOULD NOT be dependent on an admins personal opinion. The reason is because, conquering 10 colonies built for the purpose of resources maybe interpreted as being severe by one admin, and a minor violation by another. What I mean is opinions differ. And peoples ban times should not depend on opinions.

There are certain rules in the ToS, again lets take farming, that are misinterpreted and bans issued for no apparent reason. Understand that farming is supposed to be an ABUSIVE tactic. It becomes abusive, when the number of colonies you ask your friends to build is more in number. If its just one colony, where a friend builds to watch and then asks you to take a crystal, then that is NOT farming. Today people get banned for it.

There are other ingame tactics available today, that can again be misinterpreted as violations and people get banned for it. When you have an option ingame, you must be able to use it. If you dont need it, the feature should be removed. The players should not be blamed for playing the game with what they have.

Now all that said, lemme come to the supporter treatment issue. I know there are supporters on both sides - a fair side that plays without cheating and a set of players that cheat. Now saying, dont cheat to not get into trouble, is easy to say. But statistically and practically it is not possible. Deal with it. So now, if you are gonna ban someone, say because he conquered a couple of guys who were friends, and say the person has spend 2k dollars, and got reported by a non supporter, then the admin SHOULD NOT ban him. Reasons? It is not farming when you conquer 2 colonies (its not abusive), and secondly, you have a customer who is paying you a lot of money. It makes zero sense, to ban him and him and make him lose money. BD is absolutely lucky to have people like that, and it is because of people like that, that this game still runs. Saying, its not because of them, is all false propaganda. Not true. If the same player created a 100 multies, and used the multies to attack his enemies, then go ahead ban him. Compensate people that suffered because of his actions with resources. No such compensation is given today. I also said, dont ban people permanently. You want people returning to the game. You only need to send out a message to the player, that he ruined it for himself, and not actually ruin it for him.

Saying the admins have put in great effort to make the game playable and fair, is not true. The admins in reality, do an okay job alright, but often times are shody, not communicative, not prompt and jump the gun too easily and ban people. They also tend to poke their noses in ingame matters, which is not an admins job. Admins are there to moderate ONLY. Not invent rules and ban people as they see fit.

The challenge ingame you talk about is coming up with good ideas to outwit our enemies. An admin does not have to add extra challenges, through a shady ban system. That is not required and no one needs it.

Its just according to you, that BD is a better place without a cheater that spends a lot of money. Not true. If the cheater continues to keep violating rules then go ahead perm ban him. Maybe follow Spyda's ideas which are actually practical, and I like them. But if its not the case, dont jump the gun. Compensate the side that suffered because of his actions and ban him for a reasonable timeline. Have clear rules and keep them simple. Not everything is a violation and should be interpreted as such and admins should mostly stay out of such things that are subject to interpretation.

I hope you understand my explanation and take the time to read it, before you jump the gun and start posting

The thing is, everything is relative. Perhaps in earlier times, farming was an unknown problem, or perhaps even nonexisting (idk, I wasnt on the OC times, sadly). But Admins have to deal with 1, 2k players, and, say, 3-5 worlds. That adds up to 3-10k players, most of them messaging the Admins about problems, saluting, or even spamming. Other than the common rule breaks, they must deal with situations they might not have encountered before. Also, in the farming example, the punishment might be relative to the number of colonies in question. Now Im not saying the Admin's judgement will be absolutely perfect (I myself consider that "farming" is just a way to use your diplomacy 2 get followers, but just my personal opinion) but it will be more down the middle, and it is necessary that he regulates the world.

Another problem is, that the player himself goes into the specific 2 escape a ban. He/she will do whatever it takes to prevent this, and this is when they apply to the technicisms. Not all of this is the Admin's fault: its also of all of the players, as we have provoked most of these rules by exploiting their absence. And also, the holes in between them. Now when you say the Admins shouldnt go interpretating the rules, that is the problem: the players do. And they probably put up a better discussion than this 1. We are only seeing the authority's side here, but, perhaps as in RL, it is not the only 1 at fault, nor it can solve all our problems alone.

And to attend the supporter issue, the thing is your idea is to sacrifize the sheep for the wolf. But ofc, the wolf cannot live without its sheeps, and so everything falls apart. Now ofc I understand that this game will move with money, but ppl will only pay 4 fun. And no matter how you put it, youre suggesting special treatment for supporters. But the thing is, you do this and youll have very little players left, as many will rage-quit after being faced with a cheat and seeing how the offender gets away from it even better. Soon, we will find ourselves in the same situation as the Kong servers (no offense 2 the Kong servers, but making an ilustration here xD), in which the alliances cannot keep the current strategies and tactics.

And here is my idea 2 solve this. Ofc, first of all we must realize how overworked the admins are, and that their job isnt anything easy: this side wants this, the other wants that, and so on, even 4 a very small problem. So why dont we help them? Instead of trying to change the whole rules sistem we have atm, why dont we help the admins improve it? Rules dont need to go - they just need 2 change accordingly to the current situation. There is the suggestion forum, lets use it. Also, debates like this wont hurt ofc (as long as we keep them peaceful ) So ultimately, we should put kind of "absolute rules and penalties", so you know just how many tears youll drop when you get banned Ofc all of this, in consensus with the Admins. (In my country, there is a saying that says that in a war that you announce, ppl dont die. Were telling u most of the ways 2 break the rules, and here is what youll get cus of it. No breaks. Uve been warned)

And lets put an example on my expression: lets say this 2k$-boosting guy builds on a world, by the #1 alliance. He boosts his hat off, even after conquered by the alliance. Now, he calls some friends, and he gives them reds. He then orders them to make multis, and it doesnt matter how strong the #1 alliance is, if they dont or cannot cheat back they are doomed. By the time an Admin can get into the matter, the alliance will be there. And since the guy boosts 2k$, only his friends might get banned, while he probably ends up with a huge score, and the former #1 alliance now in ruins. Do you think the members of that hard-working alliance will return? Then every1 who faces a similar dillema will just leave. But then there will be no decent competition, so ppl start leaving generally. The fun will be lost gradually.

This just promote less activity and less effort too. Just give your account to some1 else while you have a nap. It is like money buys you a free pass through the rules. Or just go into a corner, and be careful with your farms. If the Admin catches you with a couple, you know you wont get even penalized, or if so it is minimal. That is almost a safety measure against the application of a rule! Now were protecting ourselves from the rules that protect us? How about we ride along, and change the course of it? Ofc this would be a joint effort with the administration, which Im sure that is more than willing to listen 2 all of us and to make this a better game.

And the challenge isnt to defeat the oponent while not getting banned! It is about defeating the enemy, in the room you are given, or between the lines you have been assigned, and know every1 is on your same condition, so only your skills, abilities and dedication influence on your results. Ofc with a little luck, which cannot be completely eliminated from anything xD. Outwiting is 1 way to win, not the only 1 by far. Its not an extra challenge, its an integral part of the game, it is what defines it. And Spyda's idea could be considered, but a change should be done in general, not just 4 a specific sector of the BD players. Alieniating 1 sector means most of them will leave, and that doesnt stay there - other sectors will also fall, and eventually all of BD will suffer.

Again you dont get the argument fully. I never said change this or that for a specific sector. I never said not to go ahead and ban a guy that gives tokens to someone to make a zillion multies. I said ban offences.

BUT, define clearly what those offences are. I agree with your idea of having specific punishments for specific offences. That is what Spyda did. First offence, a warning, second a little more and two 3rd strikes, its a perm ban. I can agree to that.

Now, I never said treat supporters and non supporters differently. Treat them equally. But I take the example of supporters because it is them that pay money. If it pleases you consider it any player. A guy cheats, ban him but appropriately. Not for disproportionate timelines.

Now another thing is, you CANNOT look at a rule in a very stiff fashion. There is a difference between a certain action amounting to a crime and the same action amounting to completely valid tactics. I conquer about 200 colonies on an average when I play serious, does it mean that I cheat? How does one or two friends being a part of those 200, make it a violation? It does not. Its because 2 colonies is not abusive by any means. If I get 50 colonies to build and conquer and take crystals, then that's farming and a violation.

Now when an admin deals with situations they havent encountered before, make a note of it. If someone is wrong, have a discussion and then issue a warning. As much as an admin hasnt encountered the situation, the player accused may not even know its an offence. So banning him outright is again wrong. Such a situation needs either an ingame change in mechanics, or a new rule added to the ToS, and a punishment that is proportionate to it severity defined. If a player is smart enough to escape a ban, then no one would know about it, so I dont see what the issue is here. I am only talking about cases where admins find something, or think they did. \

Now if the admins are too overworked, then either reduce the number of worlds, or increase the number of admins so there is more delegation. If 2 or more sides keep whining, the admins should go by the rule book. If its there, its a violation. If not then no. If its a new situation, take it up for consideration, but no bans will be issued, because such situations have never been addressed before. Even if that new situation is something that the admins and the players dont like - STAY OUT OF IT.

Another option to tackle problems like acct sharing was to change game mechanics to allow the ministers to move squads etc. This is a strategy game and should not be about activity. If it is , then its wrong and its time we made some changes. Ingame changes to mechanics, simpler more efficient rules, and administrating in order to just moderate and not influence the game drastically, is how this game should be run.

Well i just had to find it. But here you clearly say that they should treat them in a difrent way.

This is what the whole things started of whit.

What I meant was, that you are hitting too hard on Admins unjustingly. And when an unfaced situation arises, they cant just shy away and go thinking, while there is a potential threat the the game rules! They have 2 take a decision on the fly, but based on the rest of the rules. And have you asked them their reasoning 4 every single ban they make? Because I bet there are aggravators, eg. the number of sworn words. Perhaps this is why sometimes bans are uneven?

And dont get confused with what Spyda said and what I said. My proposal is that we expand the current rules, to cover the current cheating. And to put stable punishments 4 each, if Admins dont have it yet. Yet it wouldnt be "get off at first and second rule breaks, Ima get u at the third". It is first rule break, a boot. But ofc depending on the rule that has been broken. At which moment we could put forward our suggestions, arguments and debates, but Admins will finally have the last and decisive word. As it is convenient 4 admins to make this game fair and fun. I know I have been on and on about the fun, but rlly it is the integral part of BD. This is the essence of every single game.

And you say to ban offenses, yet you also agree to have the 1st two slide? Seems you are falling in the circle Spyda said we all were xD Youve also been saying to allow this for the supporters, as they are the ones who pay the money that keeps this game flowing. That is somewhat true, yet I keep reclaiming that every single player keeps it running, not just 1 sector of it! Perhaps BD would not exist without supporters, but it certainly wouldnt exist without every1 that isnt a supporter! BD would never survive with just red buyers.

And if an action ammounts to a crime in some case, then it will on all of them. What I understand of this argument of yours, is that if the guy thinks he will loose his life if he doesnt win, it justifies him filling the world with multis and farming more than a RL farmer. And no1 said you should b banned 4 having 200 conquers. And I already stated my position in the farming rule, yet I also defend admins on it as I understand why they consider it banneable. These are very shallow waters of the rules. But again, if the Admins dismiss themselves from it and only ban the obvious, then no1 will be obvious. No1 would make simple rule breaks.

And its not about the guy being smart enough 2 escape a ban. But what you suggest is making it easier 4 them to do so. And this is a grave deal, as a break of the rules is a break of the rules. And ofc, every rule break has ppl who know about it. Yet it doesnt mean they will act against it: they might even help them (this is the case of acc sharing). And even if ppl know about it and report it, he finds a way free out. Or if the Admin banns him, there come the ppl who say how the Admins have such an unfair power of ban, and all of that. Their is a very unfair situation 4 the Admin: he has to choose between pleasing ppl or defending the rules. When we should just abide by the rules and defend it ourselves, as they define BD better than even the ToS.

And youre saying activity doesnt have a strategic value? What about those ppl who stay painstaking hours to find out their enemy's nighttime? Or when they find him/her offline 4 anything, how sweet it is 2 ride 2 the colony and take all the crystals and conquers? Sure, it is part luck, but its mostly skill. And activity is just a part of the measure of dedication to BD. What BD doesnt want is ppl who spend just an hour of gametime, and still win an era. Besides, it is not fair 2 ignore the activity of a player! Even if it isnt pure strategy, it has its own value in a game! And Ive seen active noobs around. They do spam a lot when they get conquered xD

So then, at the end of the day, you get results based on your skill (how much u understand BD, and how good u are 2 exploit its mechanics), abilities (how good u are at strategy, diplomacy, those things u have as a person) and dedication (here it includes supporting, and activity, which are what you can apport to BD). These are the pillars of BD, yet they are all based on strategy. Pure strategy (your plan), diplomacy (part of any good strategy), knowing your limits (aKa knowing how skilled u are), and what I mentioned relative to strategy about activity. So, why do you want it changed, when you can just upgrade it? BD has potential to improve, yet it is still well established atm. If not, then how come so many ppl play it? Like you and me? I say have stiff and rough penalties, 4 a flexible variety of rule disobedience

vault how can you keep missing the point like this?
i'll put it in a smaller posts here so maybe you can understand what deadman is saying here

1. the admins should not ban someone because they personaly feel that what the "offender" is doing should be against the rules just like what happened in E4
2. some people may not know if something is against the rules and you shouldnt give them the ban hammer because of it when a nice little warning will do
3. judge the severity of how big the offense is i'll take deadman's example for this like if you have 200 conquers and you supposedly farmed to get 2 conquers is that really worth banning?? and the idea that someone supports getting off easier we were just giving you the idea that it would be STUPID to ban someone that farmed 2 conquers when they payed $2k on the game
4. banning isnt the best way to solve problems going back to spyda's idea
5. (my thinking) people wont rage quit because someone got away with farming 2 conquers
6. this game should not continue to be about so much activity to the point to where activity is more important than strategu going back to the ministers being able to move troops
7. didnt i tell you on skype you have a knack for missing the point and now deadman is here telling you the same thing?

That argument still holds valid.

First of all its a discussions and debates thread, so things change as per opinions.

Secondly, I was speaking about business sense in dealing with anything. Inherently those points I said have to be considered by an admin. Obviously there are tweaks needed, but the general idea remains the same.

I know what this is and i am here to discus this.

Even if you look at this from a business way you will hurt one paying customer and they will leav. So who to let go is the question then.

One thing we do agree on is that it should be moore clear what punishment time you should get for each thing. That should be started and difrent on what is done wrong. I have said this earlyer but you seem to just not goten it that time.

The thing i dont agree whit you on is that i belive evryone should be banned for the same thing and same amount of time no mather who they are.

And if you done somthing worng you should not get enything back for what you lose during that time you are banned. If there is only time to lose and nothing els would it really be a punishment?

some people just dont get it

Okay lc, since you want small words, ill give y'all small worlds. What I write will be in red