1. it isnt their failt they had gotten banned for something that was not in the rules
2. you cant compare RL rules to an online game.........
3. it's not worth losing a very dedicated player boosting or not for farming 2 conquers when they have like 200 making those 2 barely any use
4.you dont ban before you get the facts straight in the bigger cases either and if something happens compensation
5. i know they dont and if you are reffering to multies i believe that is bannable aswell
6. i'm summing up his points and since i dont feel like arguing much you take that up with him
7. we are focusing on the main points expand points after they are well discussed and understood 1st rule of debate

Im expanding the main point, so every1 can c all of its aspects. Idk bout debate rules, but I do know the ppl should know all the sides of the coin

Im comparing how we make the rules. Period. And I think its a matter of common sense 2 know you can break the rules without knowing them, yet youre still breaking them

And who's saying Admins ban without having all the facts straight? What they dont have is other admin's judgement at that moment, but they do get all the facts 1st. Read carefully what I say be4 accusing

And u completely ignored what I said about the 200 conquers - 2 farms? And besides, if they are friends yet they didnt come just so you conquer them, it isnt banneable. If they only come so u can conquer them and go away, it is against the rules. And in this case it should be less severe than having 20 farms, but again that would b seen l8r in coordination with the admins and the society (my proposal).

And Im not attacking any person. Actually, Im not attacking any1 or anything. Im putting my points forward, and saying why I think they are best.

Btw, it is their fault: they should read carefully what isnt allowed, so they can avoid doing it. It is our responsability as players to obey the authority.

vault just because you say something happens a certian way doesnt mean it does and people do read the rules but we all know there is that grey area and if something in that grey area is not acceptable to the admin then the admins should send them a notification about it instead of just going ahead and banning for something in that very blurry grey area

And perhaps we cannot punish those who cross that grey area without knowing, but Admins must punish those who are looking 2 exploit that grey area. Again, this isnt an easy job, so try not to blame Admins 2 missing occationally - help them, by cooperating. What Im proposing is a ull co-work with them. And if you c a grey area coincidentally... just tell it to them. Most of the times Admins ban some1 for crossing into a grey line, its cus their intentions were to exploit it.

Little conqurer, if you are saying someone who has 200 conquers and 2 farms doesent deserve the ban. then how come? if he has paid tokens, he doesent need farms. its as simple as that. you are saying 2 farms shouldent be bannable? then where do we stop? is 3 bannable? 4? 10? 20? this thread only encoruages rule breaking, the point is, do not farm and you will not be banned. it is preety simple enough, people that farm, you have no skill, and any pride u get from a win where you have farmed is false. how about a simple solutiion? dont cheat, dont get banned, admins are happy, you should be happy, and the majority of bd players will be happy, and i am aware you may comment about daemons e4 ban, but again i say 2 diffrent posts, i am not answering both of the topics in this post, just 1 of them.

JC here again. I understand most of this topic is about supporter advantages and the unrealistic belief that Admins should cater to either the mass public or the ones who pay for the system. In my opinion the admins should keep the rules as they are, and ban everyone the same length, but Im not going to talk about that. Discussions and points are Mute unless brought up with a valid idea to stop such issue from happening.

I really do think my Minister Roles Idea would add another layer to the game. Doing that it would still require dedication to win, unlike the idea of adding units to a pool. [in my view of this situation, everyone in the allaince can log in, make units and then log out after pooling. while 1 person who actually cares plays the game with high activity, moving a full pool of ships by himself. If this one person got all his friends to do this for him, he could easily be controlling a 50-60 ships army that is basically his solely to control.] My idea allows for innovation, and also gives value to each of the minister roles beyond that of just a name. It also allows the allaince to run, should the allaince be without its leader for acouple of days or longer. (Don't you hate it when a war starts but your inactive leader can't mark them red >.< jeeez gtf on) If you agree with this idea, please say so. I will try to get it more formal and thorough and then post it in the idea topic.

To view the original Idea, look at the bottom of page 4.

to be honest the minister is the 1 thing i want done here the most so activity isnt everything and we can all live our lives and have fun with girls

ministers being able to move the units is silly, that would = in 4 people out of the 14 being able to move, as if ministers can, surely the leader can, cut out the ministers and have it as leaders being able to, otherwise you make the leader position worthless. but again:P diffrent topic. you guys do realise you can make more topics right? < sarcasm for those who are to thick.

Guys before you start arguing about supporters being banned for having 2 farms or whatever, I would urge you to do this:

QUESTION the rulebook. First of all I propose rules like Farming, Using loopholes etc be removed. The reason is that they are very vague rules.

See farming can never really be defined. As per todays rulebook farming has to AMOUNT to abuse. As Rildor rightly pointed out, when do we start calling it farming? At 2 farms? At 4? At 5? When? I will counter that, with another question - When do you say someone actually farmed in the first place? When he has a colony conquered that doesnt rebel? When he has a colony conquered that spams the enemy? When he takes outposts of the colony he conquered? Do all these actions necessarily implicate and PROVE that it is a farm? No it does NOT. If you cannot find IP linkages or any sort of black and white proof, EVEN if the player is farming, dont ban him.

Rules need to be set in stone, and so do the punishment times. But you cannot define every loophole that should not be used. You cannot define what farming really is either. There have been eras where my friends have built to watch. And they ask me to take their crystals and conquer them. I oblige, so does that mean I farmed? How does conquering 2 colonies amount to abuse?. Its not like they give me a million metal per tick! And defining all possible scenarios in a rule book is gonna make it that much more complicated. Nor can we have admin action based on Judgement calls. I mean a judgement call is merely an argument based on an assumption. Paying customers (Anyone for that matter) should not be subjected to bans based on someone's arguments. If a person is smart enough to farm without you being able to prove it, he doesnt deserve to get banned. He is smarter!! He deserves better!!

Same with account sharing. A strategy game should not need so much of activity. Giving ministers power to move squads will avoid acct sharing a lot. And before you shoot down such ideas, come up with a better one. If only leaders are able to move squads other than colony owners, no one would wanna lead. Only one guy would have to be super active. Thats just impossible.

So bottomline, question the rulebook. See which rules are ridiculous and vague and remove them from the rule book. Create a more open ended game. Yes having more friends will win you eras. Isnt that what subs do? Or "loyal allies" do? Dont just accept something as a rule, just because its been followed for 5 years. It doesnt make it right.

most of your points i agree with deadman, however i am not in favour of the unit pool, my leader suggestion was simply if it is going to happen it should be the leaders, also on your point if a person does get caught cheating he doesent deserve it? well thats not simply true, their guilty none the less and not smarter, it is not difficult to cheat, you know this, many know it, thats why many do get away with it, and thats why the admins sometimes have to ban without the actull proof, simply because its neccersary, its not perfect, and many will be anoyed, but the ends surely justifty the means. your arguement is an example say someone spent 2k on the server and then got banned? what if someone also spent 2k on the server, and got defeated by the other who spent 2k, simply because he cheated. surely that is unfair on the other guy? ofc it is.no matter what you suggest, each one will have its good points, and its bad points, their will always be cheaters, hence the ministers ideas, will stop multying? incorrect, it will have people simply multi the ministers. the game has been strong and fairly populer for many years now, why change it so drasticly? it would barely be the same game anymore..