i think its a NO

Honestly, I think that conquering somebody and then allowing them to do your bidding is part of the freedoms of BD. Yes, it does indeed seem unfair but someone having 3000 credits is also unfair, BUT ITS PART OF THE GAME. I would never ask BD to do this; but I wouldn't say 'No' either I do believe that under some circumstances this should not be allowed, like during SOLO but in a regular server it should be tolerated. It just seems like some people don't enjoy that liberty we have-A lot like the United States except that people still complain about taxes...

This is just another way of Farming. Personaly if a player gets kicked and then conquered by their old alliance with no attemption of fighting for freedom this is farming. Think of some of the comments being made!!! They might be able to join that same alliance later. (Farming) They might join a sub later (Farming) If your kicked from an alliance with the option to re-join even a sub then they should not conquerer that player. In almost all cases the player is no threat to the alliance that kicked and conquered them so the FARMING will continue with no threat or worries to the alliance. Maybe even give them insight on an incoming scan, Help with jamming raders and gates. It's FARMING no matter which way you look at it.

then we may have to ban all the watching colonies as well.

one conquer doesn't give u much resource anyway, how much one conquer give u each tick? 3 metal? 5 metal? Less than 10 I supposed...

as long as they don't create tons of OPs for their friends to take, using multi account or account sharing, it's completely legal and there is nothing wrong with that.

[quote="Seth"][color=#BF8000]Here is the scenario:

Colony A is in alliance "X", and then decides he is "not playing". Colony A then leaves or gets booted from alliance X. At this point, I understand getting conquered by alliance X, although I do not necessarily approve, it seems to be relatively common practice.

However, instead of not logging in and eventually deleting (which would indeed suggest that the player is "no longer playing"), the player still logs in regularly and yet only seems to do the bidding of alliance X, be it with military, spies etc, or both and remains perpetially conquered by alliance X, [b]Should the admin take action?[/b].

I do my best to enforce what the community is telling me they want enforced. In this case, I was repeatedly getting asked to step in and told by players that allowing this sort of thing turns BD into a popularity contest (how many friends can you have join and be your conquer / slave in one era?), and subsequently ruins the game.

How do YOU feel about it? It is important that you reach an agreement. I will enforce this as the community would have me enforce it.[/color][/quote]

COOL, enough said.

I dont think its a rupture on the rules. If anything, its like having a sub, something thats never going to be wrong in terms of rules. If a player takes their conqueror's side, why should he be banned? He has done nothing wrong: he just took a side, irrespective of his personal feelings, or perhaps irrespective of who has him/her conquered. And, that player is not in the alliance, so the ways he can help said alliance is limited. So I dont think we should reward players that, even after they had to leave their shot at winning, still hang out with their former comrades, with a ban. That conquers usually attack their conqueror, fine but it doesnt mean it always has to be like that. So, my vote is a rotund no.

My vote is a no too, it sounds like another way of farming to
NO

I've observed this kind of cases for long. And most era admin doesn't take any action.
So gud job bringing it up in the forum. But to enforce or not is a tough choice..
In my opinion this practise should not be allowed morally but it isn't cheating either.
If you have friends who wants to help you out then why not? So my vote is no..