New Rule Proposal

Hey all,
So as everyone knows, we've got a number of trolls in the community. I write this in the wake of a recent encounter with one particularly malicious player. It's unfortunate - their immaturity results in unhappiness all around and it makes the game look bad.
I tried having a conversation with the guy but got this in response http://prntscr.com/ouffsq and even before then their attitude was toxic https://prnt.sc/ouf4dh

The situation in which specific trolls thrive is this - maps with invincible cities and victory conditions of capturing all enemy cities. Take the popular colonial map with invincible cities for Denmark and Sweden as balance cities. They were not intended for an individual player's invincibility.
Also when a player has been completely and irrecoverably defeated but holds an island nation which they've walled off with infantry, and in a map where there are no air units. If the wall is well made, that player is likewise invincible. Even if they are completely defeated otherwise, those 5 militia and 1 trans unit stuck in their impenetrable city can survive indefinitely, and unrealistically.
The rule would be that in such scenarios, and ones of very similar nature, where a player has been defeated to the point of near-annihilation, can be kicked from a game by a mod because of their unfair usage of an exploit to avoid defeat.
This is a rule of fairness, an effort to start cleaning up the toxicity that's polluted our game for so long.
The issue either forces good players to submit to the whims of the exploiters who have otherwise fairly lost their games or, for the more stubborn sorts like me, a lengthy pursuit. Here's an example: https://atwar-game.com/forum/topic.php?topic_id=31853
Thoughts? If y'all are opposed please lmk why.

1.1 Doing anything that interferes with the ability of other users to enjoy playing a game in accordance with its rules, or that materially increases the expense or difficulty of staff in maintaining the game for the enjoyment of all its users is not permitted.

As vague as this rule is, it encompasses what you're explaining imo. Most of the time mods will elect to not interfere in those situations but i did get involved since 1. He had 1 unit that was reachable, but it was invisible and hiding. 2. He had 2 cities that were unable to be taken (so undefeatable) & 3. He had no intent or capability of winning since everyone else had thousands of units and he had 1.

As far as the "in accordance with it's rules" section, the player was breaking several.

Anytime a map is the result of someone being invincible and the player cannot be killed solely because of it, mods should be involved.

I've talked to camel about this on numerous occasions and he said he would change that but can't use silverlight editor. I think it should be universal that if you lose all your land you should leave since even map owner agrees

How are you able to determine that a player using the tools in game to win a game is breaking the rules? The problems raised are glitch's that need to be repaired, it's impossible for rules to fix this problem.

I side with Fatcheek on this, and Sun Tsu is correct. A player should be allowed to use any tool at his/her disposal to win; that is, of course, if it's within game mechanics. Wall fucking, ally fagging, or using stealth does not constitute an exploitation of the game. If one player repeatedly offends another player, the latter is capable of kicking and banning the former. Banning and kicking solves the problem, there is no need for administrative intervention. Currently, wall fucking isn't codified under rule 1.1, but for all intents and purposes, a player who does wall fuck is in violation of this rule. It's an ambiguous rule which, in effect, grants unlimited authority to the atwar administration.

Logically, there's no reason why someone should be kicked (by a mod) for using generally unacceptable but not legally defined tools to his/her advantage on any map. We should have a community referendum if we actually want these offenses specified in the rules and adjudicated accordingly. When feelings are placed above the written rule of law, situations like these will arise. There must be a structured system of rules and an administration capable of impartially adjudicating the rules as they're written. The only problem is that the administration is adjudicating an ill-defined, unstructured system of rules. These "rules," in effect, act as excuses for the mods to do whatever they want; they're too ambiguous. There should be a clearly defined message that says, "operating within game mechanics on any map or scenario will not result in an according punishment." As the rule stands, situations like these should not require administrative intervention.

This community is filled to the brim with overly-emotional, hypersensitive pansies incapable of taking an insult, getting wall fucked, or being ally fagged on. Just black list the fuck if you seriously think you're being "harassed." Fatcheek should receive reparations for this flagrant abuse of power. 20k sp to him.

Általa írva Tribune Aquila, 19.08.2019 at 14:16

Having an overiding disclaimer is typical of any community, fundamentally management need to protect their servers from abuse and that can come in any form at any time.

How this is then interperated by moderators is up to said management to ensure rules arn't being implemented punitivley and that such ambiguous statements are only in effect when absolutely necessery
Which overall, considering the fact mods act voluntarily to help the community on balance do a good job.

I agree with your points about mods enforcing rules for game elemants that are within the game mechanics, as long as there is no code break or actual exploit, there should be no consequence. Such matters are for the community to lobby for updates, to stop land unit naval walls being unbreakable and wf t1, within the game mechanics. Giving mods a list of more rules to enforce will just make the community resent the game, regardless if its 1 player or all of them.

Általa írva Red.Army, 19.08.2019 at 08:46

Általa írva Black Vortex, 19.08.2019 at 08:24

I've talked to camel about this on numerous occasions and he said he would change that but can't use silverlight editor. I think it should be universal that if you lose all your land you should leave since even map owner agrees

No them cities are needed.

You clearly don't understand the actual point, never have I said he should remove the cities. The point is that they add nothing outside of nerfing swedish and danish reinf and should be treated that way only, not so people can survive in game