July

Laguna, why did you not tell everyone that you made up the rules? That these are the rules. Did you just recently make them up? The only "rule" of yours that is stated specifically in the official SC rules is the last one you listed about multi-accounts. It seems that your rules are selective and that obviously it is you that decides when and who broke these "rules". Obviously the GM's let you make them up as you decide to and enforce them for you.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

You can war as long as you aren't abusive.

You can war as long as you don't "change the main pages of slaves just to make fun of [people], to insult [them]."

You can war as long as for the past six months I don't only see "posts with some negative comment refering to killing them or wiping them from the game."

You can war as long as you make the "game not

so,even if a war gets to start within the above rules.

How long before it gets decided it gets stopped because another rule needs to be added.


Where is the official GM rule update?

Do any of those strikes you as counter-intuitive? None of them is recent as well. And, if you can't notice, I copy and pasted those from messages I got.

You can war as long as you aren't abusive.

-war is automatically abusive. its war. this is a game with war.

You can war as long as you don't "change the main pages of slaves just to make fun of [people], to insult [them]."

-why not? where is the line that must not be crossed on this? who gets to be the judge? you don't like the insult then fight back.


You can war as long as for the past six months I don't only see "posts with some negative comment refering to killing them or wiping them from the game."

-well again just bann them from them from the forums and make sure people know why they were banned.


You can war as long as you make the "game not fun and leave the player feeling there's no point in spending money and building an empire

-fun is an opinion, there is no measuable goal or rule here

As long you don&#

War is not automatically abusive.
Seeing as there have been both sides saying they had fun while warring, it indicates there wasn't abuse. It isn't automatically abusive.


Why not insult people? Is that a serious question? Or are you just going against it for the hell of it? That question does not fit here. When people sign up, they aren't signing to be insulted. That's what the SAS's forums are for.


Laws are naturally imperfect. That's why in the forum we have "netiquette". Don't tell me people don't know they should behave themselves. Judging from what has been said here, they know when they are crossing a line.

"Profit in war" does not imply extortion. Extortion has never nor will it ever be allowed here. Nor is there any reason for it to acceptable.


There are rules in a fight. There are rules on everything, stated or implied. But those aren't my ru

i didn't say why not insult people. i said why can't we change the names to what we want. its a game, you want to change your countries name to crabs is stoopid go for it. i can change mine too or if i for some reason can't handle your name change we can war. I can see where you are coming from on this. but thee are different levels of insults. what i am getting at is there needs to be set standards. if we are to be judged i would like to know what i am judged against.

warring in this game can be fun. i wasn't clear sorry bout that. if one person wants to war but the other doesn't(and they didn't take advantage of the WP or staying in a main), then one person is abusing the other by fighting them. not saying its wrong, its just part of the game. i guess what the ? should be is when IS it okay to war? why war if there is no offense taken by either side. someone has to start a war. it just doesn't h

Where was Wild back in February when they changed the navy rules in the middle of wars? Instead of standing up for the basic principle that the rules of a game shouldn't be changed midstream, she argued that the new rules improved the game, that players shouldn't "put all their eggs in one basket," and called those who complained "wusses".

Leaving in a huff and destroying all her assets is childish, more the actions of a "spoiled brat" than anything done by anyone she has used that term on.

Barney never would have acted the way you guys have been.

Agreed, BArney taught me "Trenascendance?"

Jojo, totally different circumstances. Everyone was impacted equally by the navy changes. Myself and others had been singled out and had special limitations put on us... such as not being able to attack.

Totally different.

If GMs are going to directly intervene with players like that then the game isn't worth anything anymore.

With the navies, I was effected as much as you or anyone else. It's not as if Navies couldn't be taken away before, and anyone who only knew one way to fight wasn't that good anyway.

Navies WERE overpowered. You are comparing apples and oranges. Due to the navy changes, a lot of different tactical options became viable, and it DID make the game more interesting and exciting. Yes, it was harder, but before all you had to do was park a fleet off a country, make sure you had enough ammo, and pound away. The fact that you still do not realize how the nerfing of navies allowed for some mo

Everybody quit yet...nope ok I'll check back later

LMAO

First of all -

Laguna, you are retarded. There has not been one person that has agreed with you yet on this thread.

"You can war as long as you aren't abusive."

That is retarded. War = killing people. Is that not abusive?


If the game manages too boot all of its veterans, and all of its new players don't stay, it is dead. The recent changes KILLED this game. Anyone defending the changes is also retarded.

and that about sums it up, Ares.

Ares, Laguna is not retarded. Step back and read the whole thread. Laguna has a much firmer grasp on reality than anyone else. In retrospect, everything he said is relevant and makes sense. Like others, I find it virtually impossible to understand what he is saying when he says it. He could be much more helpful if he wanted to. In this this case, at least, it is clear that he did not want to.

He personally wanted changes in the game. He figured that the best way to make those changes was for certain players to leave. Those players have left or are leaving, of their own volition. You may not like his means or his ends, but it is just wrong to call him retarded. It's usually called success.

As far as means...read him closely, I don't see that he's doing anything I would call wrong. Pinpoint it, if you can.

Those rules: he's not setting game rules, he's just stating, perhaps not clearly, what shou

...suck up lawl

slocketer you seem like you love the war game. You should come to Fearless Blue, you would have a blast.

Laguna is the ultimate hypocrite.

In order to stop players from attacking and killing others, he attacks and kills them, at his own motivation. He tried to do that to me in April, then after Wild joined on my side, blames her for the April event.

More clarification Jojo, Eb declared war on me WHILE in msn chat with me. He was aware of what he was getting in to.

Just because Laguna made all of the veterans leave that play actively does not make him successful. It just shows he values his opinion over that of most of the community.

Last war I fought against Laguna sparked major game changes, and my wars were stopped mid-nuking. Whether he is innocent as the rest of us or not does not matter. The GM's obviously think his view will help the game gain members, which it clearly is not, and his attempts to "save the game" have resulted in many paid players quitting the game.

As for your game chan

Sheesh...

Ares and Wild, you both make the point that game changes in Feb were beneficial. I agree. But why are you making that point? You're just arguing that the gm's latest new policy is justified if it ends up being beneficial to the game.

At least three very active players left the game, and others reduced their activity, specifically due to that navy fiasco. That didn't help the game. I don't think it will help the game if all you babies leave now, either.

You two of anyone should see that ANY new rule or policy spat out in the middle of a war will favor one side or the other. If I have a bat, and you have a knife, and the gm says "bats are okay, but now no knives," of course it favors me, even though the new rule applies to everyone. Same with your current situation. I don't see that they are picking on you, they're just instituting a new policy. Extremely vague, the consequences seemingly not wel

If you don't understand how preventing a player from declaring war altogether is different than changing how a weapon in the game works, then I'm not going to try and explain it to you.

And I never got to truly fight any of your younger musketeers thanks to the GM's email.

I really need to scour this url from my memory, but I am still waiting on my secured countries and CEOs to expire.

Yes Jojo, players did leave, but to be honest, navies only support visa warrioring and they also only support players with large stashes of weapons. This was also only a partial change, as you guys STILL use almost exclusively navies. I AGREE that it was a bad move by the GM to do it in the middle of the war, but had it not been in the war, I doubt they would have left.

I agree Jojo that warring is fun and that I do have a shred of decency in me. However, EXPECTING everyone to play with those morals when there is no beneficial reason to is not realistic.

Jojo, whats the point in playing risk if you can't attack other players? This game is to be enjoyed on a personal level. No offense, but I do not play the game so YOU have fun. If you can't attack someone and they can attack you, I see no potential of fun whatsoever, and this game becomes a waste of time.

Ugh, okay, enlighten me, oh wise ones. Why is it that the gm will not let you declare wars and whatever else you can't do, while I can declare and play just fine?

jojo i think thats the point. 78^)*

What, that they don't even know why?

The gms pick "target" players to give punishment. Wild was no longer allowed to declare on even c3s.