DORO

[Augustus]

Re: DORO

If you ask them to attack you, and then they attack you to comply with your wishes - it is a mutual attack. I always thought that was the rule? It's just impossible to prove so can't be inforced.

Then that must also mean that all Alliance attacks are illegal. You ask someone to attack with you and they do, making it a mutual attack. The rules quotation posted by f0xx doesn't support your arguement Martin, as far as I can see.

Just so you know, I am not arguing to support triggering. I am writing to show that at present there is no clarity as to whether mutual triggering is against the rules or not, if anything it appears to be allowed. This needs to be addressed so everyone knows where they stand.

 

[Martin]

Re: DORO

If you ask them to attack you, and then they attack you to comply with your wishes - it is a mutual attack. I always thought that was the rule? It's just impossible to prove so can't be inforced.

Then that must also mean that all Alliance attacks are illegal. You ask someone to attack with you and they do, making it a mutual attack. The rules quotation posted by f0xx doesn't support your arguement Martin, as far as I can see.

Just so you know, I am not arguing to support triggering. I am writing to show that at present there is no clarity as to whether mutual triggering is against the rules or not, if anything it appears to be allowed. This needs to be addressed so everyone knows where they stand.

I didn't quote f0xx?

 

[tobapopalos]

Re: DORO

Then that must also mean that all Alliance attacks are illegal. You ask someone to attack with you and they do, making it a mutual attack.

No...

If you can't see the difference here then there is no hope for you.

 

[f0xx]

Re: DORO

If you ask them to attack you, and then they attack you to comply with your wishes - it is a mutual attack. I always thought that was the rule? It's just impossible to prove so can't be inforced.

Then that must also mean that all Alliance attacks are illegal. You ask someone to attack with you and they do, making it a mutual attack. The rules quotation posted by f0xx doesn't support your arguement Martin, as far as I can see.

Just so you know, I am not arguing to support triggering. I am writing to show that at present there is no clarity as to whether mutual triggering is against the rules or not, if anything it appears to be allowed. This needs to be addressed so everyone knows where they stand.

Jeez, don't try to twist the quote, we are talking about an attacker and defender here who are agreeing on mutually attacking. The attacker is influencing a statistic of the defender, this statistic is the Anti-Rape calculation. How can you even argue this is "legal"... do you realise that if some of us were doing this then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO JOIN AN ALLIANCE IN ORDER TO WIN. Solos are already way too overpowered and if they decide to trigger on each other on purpose then they would simply become untouchable.

You know why does Anti Rape exist right? It exists to protect solo players against overwhelming. It does not exist so a bunch of guys can abuse the **** out of it and make themselves invincible.

[edit] Edited a dosen of times to remove spelling/grammer mistakes...

 

[Alcibiades]

Re: DORO

f0xx = :winner:

 

[DarkSider]

Re: DORO

Your arguments make as much sense as a kid walking in a supermarket and pissing on the floor saying there is no rule that says you can't piss in a supermarket while pinching your left ear and singing carols in the same time so if there is no explicit rule against that means it's allowed or a explicit rule has to say "It is strictly forrbiden pissing on this supermarket floor while pinching your left ear and singing carols". So why you adults moan about it? Get over it and do it yourself.
The statistics you see at http://www.bushtarion.com/statistics.php?Opt=P are just a few funny stats Azzer wants to have on a page. The "any ingame statistics" written in eula referes to any game stats as in valuation , amount of certain hippy, effectiveness, messages sent etc .. ANYTHING. Even biggest grab on tick 1337 is a statistic or highest amount of online id's from friday 13rd. You are doing mutual attacking to trigger with the intent to influence the stats of that id as in it's land, troops, effectiveness etc. All those are stats even if there is no "Acres owned on tick 4261" listed under the few game statistics provided by Azzer. In eula is the general ideea, it's assumed not everybody will make coments and find so called backdoors as in the first example i gave.

 

[jeff54321]

Re: DORO

4. You may not mutually agree to give or receive in game land or in game staff/units/troops from your Account to any other Account or from any other Account to your Account, nor may you mutually agree to any attacks whereby both attacker and defender have agreed it is purely to modify any in-game statistics which includes but is not limited to honour, fame, most distracted, most disabled.Any breach of the definition of "land farming" (mutually agreeing to in game land exchanges from or to your Account) "troop trading" (mutually agreeing to in game staff/units/troops exchanges from or to your Account) or "pre-arranged attacks" (whereby all attackers and defenders have agreed to the attack beforehand with the intent of minimal losses purely to gain in-game statistics such as honour, fame, most distracted, most disabled etc.) can result in you losing access to your Account permanently.

k let me sum this up for u AG even though everbody has said it.... for it to be illegal the attacker and defender has to agree to the attack on eachother. so i dont see how u think allaince attacks are illegal seeing as i doubt the defender would agree. secondly about triggering its illegal because it will change their ingame statistics. from just sending the attack it will raise their total incoming hostile mobs. but since your not trying "purely to modify any in-game statistics" which im guessing you will use to argue with what i said. but the point of triggering is to stop the person from losing land and/or troops which means you are definitely trying to affect the ingame statistics even though they might now even happens, but that is what your aiming for so its in the violation of the rule i posted above. well that how i like to think about it atleast

 

[Augustus]

Re: DORO

The fact that the rule about triggering cannot be explained in one sentence is evidence enough that there is no clarity as to whether triggering is illegal or not. And further to my point, this needs to be clarified by Azzer in the rules.

 

[jeff54321]

Re: DORO

The fact that the rule about triggering cannot be explained in one sentence is evidence enough that there is no clarity as to whether triggering is illegal or not. And further to my point, this needs to be clarified by Azzer in the rules.

i could make in a run-on sentence if u like. and thats not a very good argument against anything i mean thats like telling a scientist if they cant explain their theories in 1 sentence they must be wrong

i could explain with this sentence. its illegal because it affects ingame statistics. but since your willing to take that as the reason i had go an explain it

 

[Alcibiades]

Re: DORO

The fact that the rule about triggering cannot be explained in one sentence is evidence enough that there is no clarity as to whether triggering is illegal or not. And further to my point, this needs to be clarified by Azzer in the rules.

Triggering has a few different definitions within this game. There are accidental triggers, and deliberate triggers. Now, accidental are just sending within someone else's AR triggering sphere around a target, which i'm sure everyone reading this understands. I just sent a tick early and accidentally triggered on your last tick for whatever reason (not looking properly, not calcing the ticks right, not knowing target was solo etc....)

Now, this thread is dealing with the second kind of triggering, the 'deliberate triggering': which means when someone has deliberately triggered AR on your attack on a solo, either by request of that solo or by sheer vengeance of that player who is performing the triggering. Here comes the tricky part so pay attention, if the solo target *asks* anyone at all, in forums, threads, pols, PMs, ANYWHERE AT ALL to trigger on them, and someone does then that act is illegal. (this is extremely tricky to prove however, and thusly is abused and that is where lots of the bitterness comes in.... again evidenced in this thread...)

However, if the second case arises, in which the attacker is triggered upon by another random person for personal reasons (vengeance, irritation or whatever) and the target does not request triggering in any way then that is, technically, legal. It is usually decried as the lowest form of playing and most people do not use the tactic because it tends to ruin reputations (as is supported by this long ass thread). However, it is not illegal, as far as I know.

Now, that is as clearly as i can explain the various kinds of triggering. I don't think i've missed anything, and this is always how i've understood the triggering rules.

EDIT: As regards affecting ingame statistics, DS explains that well enough.

 

[Augustus]

Re: DORO

Here comes the tricky part so pay attention, if the solo target *asks* anyone at all, in forums, threads, pols, PMs, ANYWHERE AT ALL to trigger on them, and someone does then that act is illegal. (this is extremely tricky to prove however, and thusly is abused and that is where lots of the bitterness comes in.... again evidenced in this thread...)

Alci your post sheds more light on the matter for me, however it still seems like a personal interpritation of the rules. The problem is that the rules do not spell this out whatsoever. In fact they seem to say everything but: 'helping someone to trigger AR in order to preserve land/prevent a succesful attack is against the rules'. This phrasing or something along these lines is needed so that there is no reason for someone to be under the impression that it is a legitimate tactic that doesn't break any rules. Until this is done then I dont see how I, or anyone else can be criticised for cheating. The ambiguity of the rules and the fact that some people say it is allowed and others do not only allows for more confusion. IMO issues like this will only help to put people off the game.

P.S. A portion of the responses that have been posted (especially in the IRC channel) are a prime example of why the playerbase is destined to shrink. Just because either I misinterprit the rules or dont agree with the 'older' playerbase(regardless of who is right), suddenly makes me fair game for abusive behaviour is ridicuolous. Some of you need to grow up......unless you want this game all to yourself.

 

[Mattheus]

Re: DORO

P.S. A portion of the responses that have been posted (especially in the IRC channel) are a prime example of why the playerbase is destined to shrink. Just because either I misinterprit the rules or dont agree with the 'older' playerbase(regardless of who is right), suddenly makes me fair game for abusive behaviour is ridicuolous. Some of you need to grow up......unless you want this game all to yourself.

Possible. But I reserve the right to call someone out on making an idiotic post when they say this:

Then that must also mean that all Alliance attacks are illegal. You ask someone to attack with you and they do, making it a mutual attack.

It only got silly when you and your fan club all joined the channel purely to play bodyguard and throw a few insults around because apparently we hurt your feelings?

But hey, the fact that you can't realise the difference between calling something you say stupid and calling you stupid is too much right? PS - I'll give you a clue, it was the former of the two. Get a grip and stop taking it so damn personally.

 

[CLem]

Re: DORO

'helping someone to trigger AR in order to preserve land/prevent a succesful attack is against the rules'.

From this sentence I can see you clearly don't see when the situation regarded as legal and what is regarded as illegal. If the above statement become the rule then solos that are spying their friends frequently to trigger gov defense will be regarded as illegal, but as the rule stands now, when the defender have no knowledge of their friends triggering for them at that time, it is legal.

So again, in one sentence, "You cannot help someone to trigger AR in order to preserve land/prevent a successful attack under mutual agreement" is what that rule is saying, but the rule itself includes the events of other statistics being changed as well to save the hassle of adding more rules and hence it can't be written this way i guess, again it is my interpretation, but it really isn't hard to get and since you didn't even know that rule existed I think you should just be a man and learn this lesson and accept the fact that you are wrong.

 

[tobapopalos]

Re: DORO

P.S. A portion of the responses that have been posted (especially in the IRC channel) are a prime example of why the playerbase is destined to shrink. Just because either I misinterprit the rules or dont agree with the 'older' playerbase(regardless of who is right), suddenly makes me fair game for abusive behaviour is ridicuolous. Some of you need to grow up......unless you want this game all to yourself.

No...the problem is not that you misinterpret the rules. It is because you deliberately misinterpret them. It seems pretty obvious to me that asking someone to trigger AR for you is a mutual attack, and mutual attacks are pretty much accepted as cheating. Solos abuse the lack of definitive wording in the EULA to their advantage, safe in the knowledge that they can use the badly-worded EULA as an excuse.

If you honestly don't see that you are doing anything wrong then I would be happy to see you go. Don't mind if the door slams you in the back of the head as you leave.

 

[Alcibiades]

Re: DORO

Here comes the tricky part so pay attention, if the solo target *asks* anyone at all, in forums, threads, pols, PMs, ANYWHERE AT ALL to trigger on them, and someone does then that act is illegal. (this is extremely tricky to prove however, and thusly is abused and that is where lots of the bitterness comes in.... again evidenced in this thread...)

Alci your post sheds more light on the matter for me, however it still seems like a personal interpritation of the rules. The problem is that the rules do not spell this out whatsoever. In fact they seem to say everything but: 'helping someone to trigger AR in order to preserve land/prevent a succesful attack is against the rules'. This phrasing or something along these lines is needed so that there is no reason for someone to be under the impression that it is a legitimate tactic that doesn't break any rules. Until this is done then I dont see how I, or anyone else can be criticised for cheating. The ambiguity of the rules and the fact that some people say it is allowed and others do not only allows for more confusion. IMO issues like this will only help to put people off the game.

Uh, the rules spell out that altering in game statistics and information is cheating. Having someone trigger on you to the detriment (or benefit should they happen to gain score/value/eff/troops etc) of an attacker is altering in game statistics. Period. (Altering means to change, to change means anything that changes your opponents statistics that are calculated ingame... think of the potential number of things that triggering could effect, from valuation, eff, troops, income etc...) That alone seemingly spells out cheating as regards triggering to me. Major personal interpretation comes from the fact that it isn't stated anywhere, but my understanding i think is pretty much the basis for how the entire playerbase thinks... Maybe that's egotistical of me, but i got my opinions from somewhere and it must have been the bushtarion playerbase, or segments of it in this case.

The phrasing quite evidently states that altering ingame statistics is illegal, attacks seem to alter ingame statistics, thusly, triggering would also appear to be illegal. However, the proof is where the difficulty lies, not the action. That is the key you seem to be missing. Everyone considers triggering to be 'illegal, immoral, and lame' however that ******* is awfully difficult to prove unless one of the active participants wants to roll over and paste logs .... anywho, to see my personal view on the matter, read further...

Also, I feel it necessary at this stage of the thread to point out that while there is obviously some contention as to what is legal and illegal, the impression and the appearance of legal and illegal behaviour will greatly influence the opinion the general public has of you. DORO is hammered because there have been solos who have previously used semi legitimate and grey area tactics to defeat attackers. This generates anger against the group as a whole because it appears to shelter those who break the rules, or accepted rules, depending upon your 'interpretation' (which is absolute ****ing bollocks by the way...). Shameful of you... just like most reasonable allies don't keep cheaters/multis/ID posters etc in their ally, solo 'groups' either shouldn't be groups, or should make some effort to regulate the behaviour of your members. If you don't regulate them, then i don't see how you have a single leg to stand on when you complain about slander. Since you appear to have recently installed a set of rules i will be interested to see how this goes....

Here comes the personal interpretation: I feel that any solo who can't, with Pnaps and AR, defend against, and defeat an incoming deserves to lose. This is a war game after all, sometimes you are just going to lose, and being *able* to trigger without definitive proof does not constitute a 'reasonable' way to defeat your attacker. Sometimes, you're just going to get wiped, and there really isn't anythign you can do about it short of sending that, that happens in allied and solo play alike. To have it happen because some solo simply couldn't stand to lose within the accepted game rules and decided to use frowned upon, and 'poor, cheap, weak, lame etc' tactics to defeat their attacker. Personally, i find that pathetic, the very fact you have relied upon that is upsetting and reveals a deepset weakness within you. I fully admit to probably having asked someone to trigger on me before, i'm not proud of it, but i'm not scared to admit it either...

P.S. A portion of the responses that have been posted (especially in the IRC channel) are a prime example of why the playerbase is destined to shrink. Just because either I misinterprit the rules or dont agree with the 'older' playerbase(regardless of who is right), suddenly makes me fair game for abusive behaviour is ridicuolous. Some of you need to grow up......unless you want this game all to yourself.

Your analysis is false. The playerbase is not shrinking because of the actions of the players... there have been people like Mattheus, tobapopalos, myself and others for ages in this game... It's the nature of people and the internet. You're free to be an asshole more than usual because the consequences pretty much aren't (much like triggering eh? ). You are, apparently, deliberately misinterpreting the rules to your benefit. This is similar to exploiting a loophole, which is also frowned upon, if not illegal, and should not be done. If you found a loophole, you would exploit it rather than report it, according to your behaviour/opinions so far in this thread.

Just because something is not specifically regulated against, does not make it an eligible thing for you to do. Rules are made generic so that they cover a large variety of things, triggering is included here, despite your pedantic and semantic ramblings to the contrary...

 

[mrmongo]

Re: DORO

I suppose though the conclusion to the saga would read..."they debated over an over about the legalities of mutual attack/triggering til they were blue in the face. A debate which spanned a good many rounds previous to and after the rebirth of the argument, and like previous it is too hard to maintain as a rule. People should be allowed to attack whoever they like. It begs the difference in a person asking in irc for people to attack him to trigger, giving no prove of the event, to a solo randomly mailing people that he is deleting if they want to come for free land in the hope they will send an trigger, yet leaving a footprint in the servers info inbox. The verbal gunfight continued until osama ran in an blew em up cause he was smokin dynamite. The docs said that osama binsmokin and it would be the end of this story."

 

[Augustus]

Re: DORO

I find it admirable that some of you still manage to argue against a point which is totally valid, for no other reason than the sake of arguing. The fact is, without an in depth explanation from an experienced Bush player this rule is not as crystal clear as you all make out to be. You may think it is, but it isn't. When a lot of people are asked if it is legal or not, some say it is and some say it isn't. If a new member of the game reads the rules how are they meant to extrapolate that mutual triggering is against the rules, when it has been demonstrated that you have to take a wide viewpoint of what the rule means and havean in depth knowledge of the games mechanics.

When I started the game I read the rules. I had no understanding of the game, but I read them. As I progressed I met people who would explain parts I didnt understand and other parts I worked out for myself. The problem I have is that along the way I have been given the impression that triggering is 'legal' as it can't be inforced. Now that I find myself in a position where people are aware of this opinion I am met with hostile responses and only a handful of helpful comments. It is this hostility towards someone who has been given a false impression of the rules that will contribute to the playerbase shrinking. If this is how the more 'respected' members of the playerbase behave towards someone new to the game then the playerbase will shrink.

It only got silly when you and your fan club all joined the channel purely to play bodyguard and throw a few insults around because apparently we hurt your feelings?

I never asked for anyone to stick up for me, or said that anyone hurt my feelings. So the impression you give is severely skewed from what actually happened.

No...the problem is not that you misinterpret the rules. It is because you deliberately misinterpret them.

I'm sorry, at what point did you crawl inside my head and see what I was thinking?

If you honestly don't see that you are doing anything wrong then I would be happy to see you go. Don't mind if the door slams you in the back of the head as you leave.

Ahhh, thats the sort of response I can always depend on Tobapopalos to post. If there was a definition for the sort of people who drive new players out of this game, a picture of you would surely accompany it.

 

[Alcibiades]

Re: DORO

The problem I have is that along the way I have been given the impression that triggering is 'legal' as it can't be enforced.

Your problem right there, those people were lying. Triggering is not 'legal' because it cannot be enforced. Triggering is hard to prove but that doesn't make it legal, it just makes it a hard to prove crime. Murder is still murder with or without proof. As i mentioned in my earlier post, there are kinds of accidental triggerings, but those are mostly ruled out in these circumstances which are under discussion.

EDIT: Since i'm going to sleep i feel it necessary to reiterate with some certainty that 'THOSE PEOPLE MISLED YOU, EITHER DELIBERATELY OR INNOCENTLY.' Either way they are straight up wrong. Simply because something is not specifically prohibited does not make it legal. Especially as in this case it is prohibited, quite easily interpreted from the rules. You say it's hard to read through the fact that 'altering game statistics' does include valuation, eff, troop numbers, land amount etc. Strange, I thought you were all claiming you did in fact have brains and often tended to use them, or at least, put them to some exertion.... Oh well, i've been mistaken before, rare, but it does happen.




















(Someone please read humour into the last sentence or i'll be lampooned endlessly.... it's meant to be funny but as it's late i can't be certain...)

 

[Hobbezak]

Re: DORO

I find it admirable that some of you still manage to argue against a point which is totally valid, for no other reason than the sake of arguing. The fact is, without an in depth explanation from an experienced Bush player this rule is not as crystal clear as you all make out to be. You may think it is, but it isn't. When a lot of people are asked if it is legal or not, some say it is and some say it isn't. If a new member of the game reads the rules how are they meant to extrapolate that mutual triggering is against the rules, when it has been demonstrated that you have to take a wide viewpoint of what the rule means and havean in depth knowledge of the games mechanics.

When I started the game I read the rules. I had no understanding of the game, but I read them. As I progressed I met people who would explain parts I didnt understand and other parts I worked out for myself. The problem I have is that along the way I have been given the impression that triggering is 'legal' as it can't be inforced.

If you actually read the EULA, or just Ctrl-F'ed for "mutual", then you'd have read this paragraph:

4. You may not mutually agree to give or receive in game land or in game staff/units/troops from your Account to any other Account or from any other Account to your Account, nor may you mutually agree to any attacks whereby both attacker and defender have agreed it is purely to modify any in-game statistics which includes but is not limited to honour, fame, most distracted, most disabled. Any breach of the definition of "land farming" (mutually agreeing to in game land exchanges from or to your Account) "troop trading" (mutually agreeing to in game staff/units/troops exchanges from or to your Account) or "pre-arranged attacks" (whereby all attackers and defenders have agreed to the attack beforehand with the intent of minimal losses purely to gain in-game statistics such as honour, fame, most distracted, most disabled etc.) can result in you losing access to your Account permanently.

Indeed, mutual triggering is not specifically mentioned. But pre-arranged attacks are, and mutually agreed attacks to edit in-game statistics are too. I think it's obvious one would conclude that even though mutual triggering is never specifically mentioned, it's either under the pre-arranged attacks, or against the spirit of the EULA.
I personally am convinced that you either knew, or suspected that it was against it, but decided to go with it anyway, under the umbrella of "but some people told me it wasn't enforceable" or "It's not literally written in the EULA".

Now that I find myself in a position where people are aware of this opinion I am met with hostile responses and only a handful of helpful comments. It is this hostility towards someone who has been given a false impression of the rules that will contribute to the playerbase shrinking. If this is how the more 'respected' members of the playerbase behave towards someone new to the game then the playerbase will shrink.

I find it funny you try to get into a victim role. "People are mean to me :'(". I will not make moral judgements on who's in the right and who's in the wrong on that one, but you make pretty nice comments towards toby, so for someone who's advocating the importance of a friendly community, you manage to come across to me as a textbook example of a hypocrite. Both in the way you deliberately try to bend the EULA to your own means, and in the way you make the same hostile comments as those you're reacting to.


PS: I beforehand apologise if the tone of my post is too hostile for some young readers on these forums.



edit:

No...the problem is not that you misinterpret the rules. It is because you deliberately misinterpret them.

I'm sorry, at what point did you crawl inside my head and see what I was thinking?

As I said, you cannot read the EULA and not see that it's against the spirit of the EULA. In fact, you cannot play this game and not feel that it's against the spirit of the game.

PPS : Yes Zhouj and Jorizz, I've deliberately triggered on you both, but that was to piss you off, not a mutually agreed attack to save whoever land it was.

 

[Maxi]

Re: DORO

No time to read and edit each and every post, I'll be busy days, so I'm just popping in another warning; Please stick to the debate, keep it civil, no personal attacks, flames or trolls. The next one who steps over forum rules gets a warning right away.

I quote the (hopefully soon-to-be) Rulebook:
* You cannot attack any other player if the attack has been "staged" at all - in other words, if the person you are attacking has somehow "agreed" to you attacking them, like a mutual attack. This especially refers to times when this is used in an abusive manner - to trade "free land" with people, to get "free troops" through use of bribing, to gain easy effectiveness, bounty, or lawfulness, to get a bounty removed from your own head, to get anti-rape to come when it wouldn't have done otherwise, to make a valid attacker lose lawfulness when they would have gained it, etc. etc.

Should say enough. Yes, triggering has been happening every round and unless we do something about it it'll be around. Maybe we need a 'official helper' related system in which people can send 'probable' cheating or rule-breaking and 'tag' a certain ID, where a group of people checks the tagged accounts, and tags them for 'approval' where Azzer comes into play and if he deems necessary, takes action; locks, bans, etc. Meanwhile, be sure to keep killing ingame each and everyone who doesn't follow the rules.