Public Tribunal

Introducing public tribunals:
This is where the fun part about rules not necessarily need to be taken literally and the people can decide where to draw the line between legal and illegal.
Plus saves me the bother of having to deal with any and all clowns who will think I was biased or just generally was too lenient/strict without any adequate reasons.

Who will be the judge? Me of course, as usual. But this is your chance in having a say in the punishments handed out, as generally these will be the "gray line" cases we're discussing.

Any identifying information about the players themselves will be withheld.
On the other hand sometimes very detailed records will be presented (either by default or when asked by the people), so the only way to know who said person is if it's you or someone who told you some nasty secrets.

Current case up for discussion always presented in post 2 of this thread

Case 1:

Account 1 sends
388k uu's
8.8 Bil kuwal
7000 turns
Account 2 sends
17.152 Bil kuwal
7000 turns

Account 1 uses kuwal to increase UP, doesn't build any other stats also has minimal army size
Account 2 is the larger account with 500k++ armysize
Account 1 is a tiny account

Timeframe: several months
UU rate paid: constant ~30 mil per k, give or take
Both accounts are from 1 home
Shared IP address reported

Account 1 has ultimate donator status.
NOT purchased by Account 2 but by third party.
Account 2 has normal donator status bought by himself

any further information will be given if good reasons are provided for its necessity.

Looking for further information

What sort of army size does account 1 have now? did he/she send all(or practically all) of their available UU to account 2?

yes, account 1 is down to several days worth of up in various unit types.
nothing considerable

------------
1
------------
account 1 is a feeder account used to increase UP at half price for the collective account 1+2.

The kuwal sent to account 1 was an investment to account 1's production capacity.

Account 2 is the main account. Account 1 can also be used to mass by proxy.
------------------------------------------------
------------
2
------------
Account 1's SS was purchased by account 2. In this case, the setup could be fair since he's not making nearly as much as I would ask for.
------------------------------------------------


1 vs 2 - VERY slim chance of case 2 having any merit.

It is either a multi or 2 people that know each other, one having been convinced by the other to "help out". Whichever it is, case 1 points to a feeder account.

Given the info in that post, case 1 is 90%-95% the case. If the IP is from Romania, consider it 110% chance of a feeder situation.

*Note: Same IP nails it.

added info on SS purchase

I would like to know what information or warnings are given to those who report shared IPs. That is a vital piece of information as far as I am concerned. As for how it looks I agree with sandwalkers quote below.

Sandwalker wrote:
It is either a multi or 2 people that know each other, one having been convinced by the other to "help out". Whichever it is, case 1 points to a feeder account.

One other possibility is that account 1 is away for an extended period of time, but still plans to stage a comeback at a later date, with help from account two, flip side is account 1 has a longer SS, so maybe he plans to do evil deeds with account 2, then ditch it and come back to account one.

I think the warnings issed, if any, when the shared IPs was reported should be enforced.

no specific warning or information is given other than the rules that apply at all times.

just that if you dont report automatically that you share an ip and i find it out, then i might be more suspicious than if you had reported it

I think cleared rules should be explained, as my above mentioned senerio is valid. 1 account knows they wont play for XX months, so he gives resources to account 2, then upon return account 2 must repay all hes been given. I can see where thats an honest assumption, of course, the flip side is, many people know how to exploit an admins kindness or lack of clear warnings for certain practises.

hence you guys get a chance to set an example if you want.

Also i've been suggested a good punishment method.
giving a special race that suffers extra damage/more losses, less bonuses, for some duration.
Nice alternative to outright temporary and permanent banning

its useable, but its skewed

if no one touches them they get no punishment, but if someone wanted to be a real "pain in the,,,," they could sit on them and cause massive damage and farm them till the punishment is over.

I'm not against the idea, wouldnt even need a new race just give them a "plague" visible in the attack page.

like I said, its useable but the same punishment for 2 different people could be totally different from not even a punishment to catastrophy

i would say if you know the exact number of uu he has sold then you have let him return like 3/4 of to i don't know somewhere let it dissappear.

he made a profit of 2/3 on this that 66 % it won't be a punishment to let him return 66 % that would be fair ! so i would ask for at least returning 75 % of it or more

IS the bigger account feeding the smaller one, or other way round?

ask the involved why one has received so many units for so little kuwal.
There might be legal reasons behind it.

small account feeding big account

Or you could just block the transfer of anything between the two accounts.

I don't see this as 'cheating' rather its what I used to hear called 'Multi'ing' (Multiple accounts). Still lame, but easily corrected with a ban on transfering resources to each other.