First of all the minister being able to move squads, or like JC suggested, the minister of war and the leader, whatever is implemented, is to solve the problem of account sharing. The game takes too much of time and activity. So people would wanna catch up on some sleep, but the moment they sleep they might lose squads. So to avoid that, the ministers could be given powers to move others squads for say a little extra oil. This however can be tweaked. Just the leader alone, would mean, the leader has to watch for everyone. This isnt too practical. Or we may have to switch leaders, one during our night time and the other during our day time. Thats kinda cumbersome.

Now am not saying if a person is caught cheating he doesnt deserve it. I am saying if a person is smart enough to avoid detection, but is being suspected of cheating because of ingame activities, then he should not be banned. It should be proved beyond a shred of reasonable doubt that someone is actually guilty. Otherwise its like sentencing an innocent person, which isnt fair. Even if you know through experience that a person might be farming, dont ban him until you have solid proof. Its only fair. And if the guy does it in such a way that he doesnt get caught, then kudos to him, he is smart. Thats what I meant.

I also meant to say, have concrete rules and punishments defined:

Violation A - Such and such punishment
Violation B - Whatever punishment for that.

The multi thing is bad indeed. If a person is found making multies, ban him. But again, if you just suspect someone, then first prove it and then ban him.
Its fair enough what am trying to say.

The game as it is now, actually sucks sorry to say. People rant about game balance, in reality there is none. There is arbitrary admining based on whim and notions, there are too many people with extreme purchasing power (mostly older more successful folks) when compared to certain kids that cant buy tokens. So a drastic change in rewriting the rule books, changing certain game mechanics, fixing bugs and maybe introducing new features is definitely in order, if this game has to first survive and then THRIVE. Otherwise things are gonna go downhill. Trust me.

Violation A - Such and such punishment
Violation B - Whatever punishment for that.

i agree with this, however ur above point that people will always multi, again i tell you, they will simply still multi whoever ca move all of the troops, only a fool would belive they would not, the game is tiring ofc, thats what the game is ment to be, they will still multi, giving them the excuse they want some sleep so they have a freind multi and this will remove it? no, that is not correct, their will be less reaso to multi in a way, but also more of a reason. one mans sleep is another mans watch. And also, not being caught cheating does not make someone smart, it is very easy to change ips, etc many diffrent ways to do it, but i want say here and give the fools ideas, they are simply stupid if they get caught. but again, ill make the point of can we make other threads. its getting rather silly now, their is 3 points being considered, this thread is getting rather silly im sure ull agree, however i do agree that diffrent things should have diffrent and clear punishments.

Whats multiing got to do with account sharing? I dont get it.

My proposal that the MoW or the leader or whoever, moves squads will be in the same alliance. Nothing connected with multiplaying.

Multiing is creating more than one colony per server and farming them. They are both completely different. I know that IPs etc can be changed. However, if you cannot directly link someone with a crime, you cant punish them just because you suspect they did. Remember, just because you suspect someone of a crime, doesnt necessarily make them guilty. Heck the guy may not even be doing it.

Sure go ahead start a thread about what you wanna talk about. Those who wanna continue here can do so.

BTW the game as such is not supposed to be tiring and demand 20 hours per day of commitment. The game is a strategy game and the spirit of the game is to use strategy. Not activity. Its a wrong perception that most of the community has. Yes still activity will be needed, but certain measures like ministers moving squads etc, can and will let people play a more relaxed game.

hmm you are right i misspoke, where i used multing it should of been account sharing. and the game will always depend on whos most active.in most cases, not all, all real time games will, and im not gonna make a new thread its none of my concern, just saying its difficult to discuss 3 topics without losing track, and even more so if an admin etc is reading the comments. but if 1 person can move the entire army? hows he supposed to do that? with what supplies, he would then need control of supplies to..theirfor basicly it creates a 1 man game with 13 pawns does it not?

Then limit the number of times he can move squads ever 24 ticks for example in a 1 tick/hour game, limit it to 10 times a day or whatever. And the minister would be using his resources. Maybe the restriction can be just to move squads and not attack. Whatever. You can always think up different scenarios. And the person moving others squads would use his own supplies (oil, metal).

The proposal was only to REDUCE account sharing. Most times the individual has to actually play the game.

i see your point more and more, however i dont think account sharing would stop, even if in somehow magical world it was made so their should be absoutly no need to account share, they would still do it. but i guess i am focusing on this to much, and not thinking of the mass that might stop doing it, which i think is ofc your focus.

Indeed, there can be no perfect solution to anything. People will always cheat on an internet game. But we can only try to reduce such instances.

so is this finaly resolved?

This is a strategy game... correct. Yet it is still a game. You need 2 play it to win it. And whoever plays it better has more chances to win. Whoever plays it more has more chances to win. Whoever understands it better has better chances to win. Yet, every single game is all about chances, probabilities... so if a guy plays this game 20 hours a day, why should we penalize him, by just scrapping his efforts and putting a person who only dedicates, say, 10 or 12 hours in a game, at his same level in the game? He can dedicate so much time, yet he is restricted from doing so! Eventually, those who play so much gain more skill and quicker than average players. Eventually, these are the ones who become the best. This is just a try to take this advantage from them, and advantage they gained by very hard work and effort.

If they told you you can only make, say, 15 squads this era, would that be fair? Ofc you can make much many more, yet since some ppl couldnt do 20, or 30, they decided 2 protest about it and made it reduced to 15! Or put a power limit at 300! Or a crystal limit! Rildor is right in that there is no perfect solution, yet that is no excuse 2 just take any solution. We have to search the best possible. Yet putting limits on a section of a person's attributes? I dont believe this is anything near perfection. Not even close.

The bottom line here, mfreak, is that BD policy is for all bans to be equal. All admins are subject to follow this policy but at the end of the day you're only ever going to believe what you perceive.

This is going in circles because no admin is ever going to be able to satisfy you into believing that his bans are given equally, and you're always going to perceive that they're not so you'll probably never change your mind.

This is going nowhere - simply accept that BD policy is what it is and whether you choose to believe it or not, this thread really isn't going to change anything. Your argument is based purely on personal experience and perception, which is far from concrete and the admins could never provide enough evidence to prove anything either way. So this discussion is going to go absolutely nowhere.

I tried to explain the status-quo that exists in one of the first pages of this thread and it was overlooked, I won't waste my time running around in circles for page after page like you guys. At the end of the day you either believe us or you don't.

You're not enlightening people to the truth, you're just giving your opinion. Which surely you must accept is flawed since there's absolutely no way you could ever know who truly is a donator and who isn't and to what scale when you look at the cases that you cite as examples. (For example I know that one of BD's most cited 'mass donators' has spent less than a hundred dollars in several years of playing)

Regarding the idea of writing out 'set punishments' for certain bans - that in itself opens up a whole can of worms. For example, if you ruled that below 4 farms is fine then you can bet that every single player will suddenly have 3 farms.

If you said that rule break X gets you banned for 2 days then you'll suddenly see a lot of players who think it's worth a 2 day ban doing it - they might even start massing their alliances asking them to be prepared to defend them during their 2 day ban period.
Then there's the grey areas, what if you know somebody is cheating but can't offer 100% cast iron proof - do you go for a lesser ban, no ban at all, sit and watch? A lot of 'rolling with the punches' is involved, which would make specific ban quotes for each rulebreak difficult to write and follow.