Clear rules on all servers

Relative to your game and the activities happening with in it, I would suggest that if you suspect any rules of the ToS requirements are in violation, that said rule breaks be reported formally so that 1: A record of such activity is documented 2: That any actions required to react appropriately to the accused breach of the rules can be applied.

Discussions taking place on a network that is not controlled by the Bytro system is not within the abilities of the staff to take action upon.

If the 'harassment' took place in the game using the media exchange features provided by Bytro, then please submit a report for documentation and actions if required.

The use of Goldmarks is permitted in games and to denounce the use of it is, in itself, a rule break.

Wolfpacking is not defined by the player, but by the definitions given to the staff. Provided that a report of such alleged activity is submitted, the staff will compare the activity to the requirements to determine if the offence is sufficient to act upon.

Submit a report if there is a problem.

Description sounds like a violation of ToS known as Wolfpacking.

I would suggest to collect evidence of days the players spawned into map and when they declared war or surprise attacked you , making you the target. Collecting screen shots of all attackers which are involved in same Alliance clan's and are involved in this targeting, etc... make reports for account pushing including screenshots of the data assuming that account pushing is the only avenue/proof or road leading toward proving 'wolfpacking'... example you can not prove murder without a body, it is only considered as a Missing person.....

No-one can give better official response than South Paw gave. IMO

Kind Regards, Hastings TNT

I feel this is a serious issue as well. In my game, the four players were confident enough to even keep spamming that as many alliance members can join the game as the game will accommodate. While I understand that this is the official stance, I want to bring to attention that this does not make logical sense. First of all, from my knowledge, other than in some specialized games, the sole goal of the game is to win the game. Given that the only two configurations to win is either solo or as part of a coalition of 3, having any more than 3 signals the intent for the extraneous players to aid the 3 to a win. The obvious counterargument would be that alliance members may want to fairly compete against each other. And to that, I say that should definitely be a right of theirs, but since internal alliance games already exist, there should be no circumstances where playing with more than 3 players is allowed since this puts the non-affiliated players at a clear disadvantage. I would prefer if everyone started off with a clean slate to make allies and enemies, but seeing that this is impossible, they should not be given the advantage of being able to trust more than 2 other players unconditionally. In fact, I feel a case could be made concerning "join[ing] a game with the intent to influence the outcome... will be considered Account-Pushing", since there is no way for the 4+ player to win, then clearly joining is to influence the outcome.

---------(I kinda got lost in a rant here...my main points are outside this)-------------------------------------------------------------------

They even blatantly sent me this link: General Game Rules The wording of "sole intent" makes it tricky, as they can easily claim they have other goals on top of killing a certain player. But regardless, kamikaze attacks don't make sense, and how can 5 players simultaneously attack me with no previous interaction, and then keep attacking even though they know landing on the island will incur massive losses since I can defend with half the troops. They even keep harassing me to the extent of falling from 2nd and 3rd rank to 6th and 13th, which I see as an indicator of them giving up their personal goals just to kill me off. Myself, and at least one other player that I know of has attempted to report them, but it's been over a week and no response yet. Another week, and I'll probably be wiped from the game...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not my intent to criticize what are surely well thought out rules, but I feel in some cases adhering to the spirit of the law rather than the letter, is needed to keep this game a fair and entertaining experience.

Best,

Monty

To reply with what I can in order as posted:

1: GM is a tool that players have at their disposal to use at their discretion. If it in violation of the rules, they loose it, the same as one looses it in their own defense. It is discretion of the holder to do as they see fit with it. Which also responds to your question #4.

2: Filing the report is done the same for anyone. Once received, none take precedence over another and all are investigated for the reported violation by the staff. The target is to achieve this in a 72 hour window. Some take longer, or the quantity of reports submitted may hamper us achieving this target window. Findings are subject to action or inaction. No action is taken on those that evidence has shown no violation within a game. This also addresses Question #3.

5: The system used retains records of issues. No further disclosure of this system will be made.

6: The FAQ and other areas of resource within the forums contain these definitions that you seek. Find them at your leisure. As for reporting, as addressed in question 2, the more accurate the information, the better we can serve you.

7: See question 6. The info is not hidden and has been discussed at length for many years in the forums. I will not find it for you. Seek it out or ask a specific question in a thread where those with the ability to direct policy have the opportunity to offer explanation or rebuttal.

8: A revision of the previous question and receives the same answer.

9: This I have no immediate answer for, as I do not play in these maps. But, I will refer your question to staff and try to resolve it for you if it can or should be resolved.

10: Speculation on this is up to the user to evaluate. Unless there is a specific rule against who may and may not join a game, 500 players from the same aircraft carrier at sea may join, or 500 tribesmen from the Amazon. It is up to those wishing to join to do so.

As you have stated, this is simply a reply to the questions asked and is not my intention to appear aggressive or politically incorrect in it's application.

South Paw Could you comment on whether more than 3 associated people joining would infringe on "join[ing] a game with the intent to influence the outcome... will be considered Account-Pushing", since there is no way for the 4+ player to win, then clearly joining is to influence the outcome.

Thanks,

Monty

If I received a report stating this as a complaint, and after checking, found the evidence to support that conclusion, then yes. And I would react appropriately to it as well.

Buddha has a very valid point on this. This is where some of the research is involved

and it can be lengthy.

Quote from Golden Buddha

issue is Morris- they can win as a as coalition : more people for allied medal

plus in the end they will probably allow their main friend or account to take over their provinces to make him even stronger, but not before they will kamikazze into someone else. if they will do that you will know owner of that particular friendpack - guy who is eating them from behind.

it is always the same since 2014 when I came back

Yeah I feel like an account ban isn't enough to stop them, they can easily just make new accounts and the ban will only come after they've ruined the game for other people since there's no reparations. I guess I'll have to wait and see who benefits at the end of this but by that time I'll be long gone... That's why I'm advocating to limit associated people to 3 and under. That is the maximum that can win, so this eliminates any feeding, although I guess the players targeting a solo win can still take advantage. There's no way to eliminate it entirely, but this is a step in the right direction.

Quote from South Paw

If I received a report stating this as a complaint, and after checking, found the evidence to support that conclusion, then yes. And I would react appropriately to it as well.

Buddha has a very valid point on this. This is where some of the research is involved

and it can be lengthy.

I've submitted two reports so far, since I had new evidence come to light. Is there a way to provide supplementary evidence after an initial report since I didn't realize I was supposed to compile screenshots as evidence.

Monty, see #5 in my reply list. We do keep track.....

Quote from South Paw

Monty, see #5 in my reply list. We do keep track.....

Yes I understand that, I just didn't want to inundate the system with additional reports so I was wondering if there was an alternate avenue to provide additional evidence, or is it preferred to submit additional reports as necessary?

Unfortunately Monty, at the moment I can not think of an alternative that would provide the opportunity to track, research and take actions as deemed necessary. I will ponder it though. Redundancy has it's value too.

Quote from South Paw

Unfortunately Monty, at the moment I can not think of an alternative that would provide the opportunity to track, research and take actions as deemed necessary. I will ponder it though. Redundancy has it's value too.

Alright sounds good, I'll just submit additional reports as new evidence comes to light. Although I'm considering just quitting that server, I'm pretty much crippled so I'm not sure if all this work in the name of justice to bring that guy down is worth it. It's also additional workload for you guys. Thanks for answering our questions though!

This has been a worth while discussion, thanks Buddha for bring some of these elephants in the room to the table, and to you Monty, for you concern with the players as well.