nah teddy isnt going to the island, since he's allready taking you to town

> ~* Forever

1) even with the new wording, many of the cases i presented COULD be interpreted to fall into this category. The ones you present are clear examples, the ones i present are more or less in a gray area, and thus totally up to the disgression of individual mods to rule as they see fit. My main concern is that rules which are meant to protect players can easily be turned into a tool for random terror if they are not clear in scope and wording, and based on verifiable proof of ill intentions. Actually, issuing blocks based on circumstantial evidence could even be considered to fall within the existing rule of "Abusing ingame functions denying other players the possibility of gameplay (is a serious offense and will result in an official warning and subsequent block of the offending empire)."

2) That said, as i allready pointed out, the rules allow you to block for any perceived abuse, and if necessary make up new rules as you go. The Terms of Service also allow you to terminate any account without explanation. I never said mods abused their powers, i've actually allready argued that you were well within your authority.

3) Since we poked the bees' nest anyways, in this particular case i find it quite disturbing that a player whose efforts were ruined by his leader through an action that falls DIRECTLY under the rule of "Abusing ingame functions denying other players the possibility of gameplay is a serious offense and will result in an official warning and subsequent block of the offending empire." gets blocked as a result of an interpretation of the spirit of that rule, while aforementioned leader is still playing while having violated the letter of the same rule. This will be the only time i refer to the actual block itself, and then only because of the strong impression of favoritism it conveys, once again with the intention of showing that it mostly comes down to the narrow scope of investigation and simple interpretation of circumstantial evidence by individual mods.

On a sidenote : Yes Kollop, I KNOW you guys mean well, and try to do the best you can. All I want to stress with all this is that mods should be very careful in issuing blocks, do FULL investigations into the matter INCLUDING the precedents which led up to the offense, and should better err on the side of caution by issuing one less block than to block in a way that could further alienate mods from the player base.

hey middle !

And Rchie ... last time we took a vacation is Syria, we tried to explain the idea of a hardcore round to them. Look what happened eh?

> Render wrote:

>"what's the difference between TCO and TBO?? --> 1 character"

Indeed. I have one.

I wish to stress that this post was made to clarify the current rule, not to discuss blocks, actual or possible.

And before you mods decide this is a thread discussing a block, it is not. This is a thread intended to discuss a rule, and its possible consequences. It is here for the enlightenment of other players. You should give me tagpoints for it.

Under the rule 'anyone who performs an action that ruins the fun of their family will be blocked', the following types of players should all be blocked :

- Any leader of any non-top-10 family in any galaxy : by not drafting the right people and not coming up with a better strategy, you have obviously ruined the fun for your family. Block.

- Any player who deletes with planets still on him/her : you ruined the fun for your family by destroying a lot of useful infrastructure, and leaving planets open for exploration by other families, thereby offering shares to them. Block.

- Any player who attacks a family that has, say, 50% more NW. Yes, even when corecleaning. You definitely have the intention of getting your bankers raped. Block.

- Any attacker that allows a much bigger family to set up shares with his fam. You are letting them farm you eventually. This definitely ruins the fun for your family. Block.

- Any attacker in a family that just lost a war. Your family lost a lot of planets due to your inability to perform. Your actions have ruined the fun for your family. Block.

*note : considering the previous 3 points, i advise strongly against playing an attacker at all unless you are in a family that is GUARANTEED to be top 3. Even then. But it's your call in the end.

- Any banker/resourcer that fails to make enough $/resources to outsave any other fam that cancels on you. You ruined the fun for your family by losing the war, and thus a lot of planets, even before the war started. Talk about intent there ! Block.

- Anyone that doesnt log in at least twice per day, with a combined online time of at least 2 hours. You're too inactive to really contribute to a top strategy. You're letting your family down badly. There goes all the fun. Block.

- Any inexperienced player that makes mistakes. Really, what ARE you doing here? This is a game for inbred oldtimers, you are ruining their fun. Go away. Block.

- and so on and so on. the possibilities are legio, and only limited by the imagination of the mods in interpreting something.

Actually, all said and done, i advise against playing IC at all unless you are very experienced (at least 10 years of playing ic), very active, very motivated, have a fam full of topdrafts, are strongly organised and have everything planned out beforehand. Otherwise, youre bound to let your family down in one way or another, earning you a block. I hope this helped a lot of people out there.

> SunShine wrote:

> this is a strong argument, if she had said any of this when i argued with her instead of threatening to quit, i may have heeded her. for the record though, i still disagree with you.

>quote : "50 v 60 income: saying 6.66% sounds small, but the fact is youre throwing out over 1.5 ticks of income every day.  SA is a good get (the only real advantage of this race imo), but if you explore smart, 20-30 eships at a time, you can get by without it, in fact most popbankers do."

as said, if your bankers are inactive or semi-active, this holds true. If you have a banker (like dixie) who is on 16h per day, SA will allow you to explore at 16 explos allready and still make a gain compared to banker without SA who launch at 24 each time, with the added bonus that you build a lot of cheap infra a day earlier each time. This will speed up the reinvestment cycle, and actually improve overall growth of the fam (as everyone knows, the sooner you start making more money, the sooner you can reinvest it into making even more money, which will make even more etcetc).

>quote : "0 v 10 pop: suggesting that taking an additional penalty to popgrowth in a short lived galaxy like pw is silly.  10% is low enough, and if you want to run a custom race, it should do something DIFFERENT than revs do, and this is a key area that could be improved, not slashed further."

i've said it before and i'll say it again, popgrowth bonusses are highly overrated. The points you invest in any bonus over 10% popgrowth bonus are better spent somewhere else, the number of turns gained to achieve same pop get ever smaller and smaller. Sure, 50% popgrowth WILL pop up quite a bit faster than 10%, but its NOT worth the 40 creation points for sure. Furthermore, as said before, popbankers sit on fully popped up planets a LOT of the time, in which case there is absolutely NO difference between -30% or +50%, making the 'put the points somewhere else' argument even stronger.

>quote : "0 v 10 magic: if a pax wants to kill your pop, its done, whether you have 0 or 10% makes no difference at all.  the only instance this would help is if a random opper came after you, and having enough wizards should cover this. as for non pax oppers trying to kill your pop, it isnt that common of an occurence, and if they are determined, the same applies."

It's PW, with low number of poppers and quite a bunch of bored paxes. Any extra protection you can get against random ops is a bonus i'd say. Just an opinion though

2 more remarks : first, i'm just defending this race as a popbanker in PW, this doesnt mean i would actually use popbankers in PW myself, to be honest, i probably wouldnt. Second, Dixie designed her race not with the intention of doing something totally different than a Rev, but she REALLY wanted SA, so custom was the only option. Anyways, i'm still convinced this race will work at least as well as a Rev, and definitely a lot better than a Pax as you guys also came up with.

lol Dixie, your race has my blessing. It's more than playable. If any of your fammembers still has problems with that refer them to me, i'll explain every last bit of the maths to them if necessary. Point them to my tag first though, so they think before they start a discussion

edit : and now i found out this is for PW too ... what ARE those fammembers going on about? PW is THE galaxy to try out different things, if she wants to play this race, then she plays this race. Hell, i once tried to play pop with own food production in PW and still ended up 2nd best banker that round, and indeed i found out it doesnt work, but i had a lot of fun and learned a lot about finetuning your infrastructure. If winning is more important than having fun and learning more about how to play IC, then PW is the wrong place to be, go be an arse in MW or something ...

And on a sidenote, the second your leader sets someone to rogue status, that person no longer has access to your forum. Still, wrong thread. So, back on topic, GO WIWI !!

lemme make a wild guess ... this was your last post in this thread?

> {Black Mafia} IC Death wrote:

> Aleph learn english before u insult me.. and SHUT YO FACE, BEFORE I MURDER YO FACE!!!!

> Murderface lol

you're one to talk