FIRE & The Imperium Breach Procedure

seaborgium wrote:As far as I know there was only 4 with the policy. Now only 3. The policy was worked out on how to deal with breaching of farm policies. As posted you guys do not have a posted policy here on the forums, you have also said somewhere that you no longer have one. I wish you the best of luck with that.

Since you have conceded from the breech agreement then I wish you the best on how hits on you and by you are handled.

kingkongfan1 wrote:....see I REQUESTed action be taken on an issue that at the time was already 7 days old & should have already been dealt with... the word DEMAND is nowhere in any message from me nor was my tone demanding... the only thing that I am guilty of is asking for too much compensation,( for both hits, instead of just the second).....

I will conceded that no you did not come out demanding, but when you made first contact you did not say anything messaging anyone. If you read the breech policy...

ian wrote:1st breach of alliance policy = education & warning PM sent to the player committing the breach, which educates the person on the farm policy and warns to wait for the target to have more kuwal out the next time.The player's leader is also contacted.

it says a warning..... By asking for too much in your first contact with me that is demanding, to me. I am sorry if that is not what you meant but that is the way of the internet. Might I say that you may want to think more about what you want to say when you make first contact, make sure to include all information. I did the 7 day item due to how you approached me. Had you told me that you made contact with Ian and SA I would have asked you to wait a day while I ask them, then got back to you.


BTW... for everyone

This policy states how the alliance that have signed it will handle breeches on them not all breeches made. If you have not signed it you are free to handle it how you chose but be very mindful that the alliance that you deal with may not like how you handled it and my strike back. I know a few very hungry people in FIRE and TIE, and a few in WR that would love a chance to 'play', also some in other small hidden alliances that have no issue standing up to others, Buhcore

Thank you seaborgium... no seriously, for the explaination on the breach policy... & for showing (FIRE-o) what they can look forward to when attempting to get a breach in the policy dealt with... I admitted my only fault in our, (mine & your) conversation. & I spoke to you after 7 days... as I recall (I could be mistaken) the policy states 72 hr time limit to deal with matters. I did not speak to Ian, & have no proof that anyone else did either, but I did speak to SA47 & wasn't able to get satisfaction there... so I ask anyone reading this, exactly what was I supposed to do? we are not conceited, we know who we are & where we stand in this game... we seceded from a policy that offered no protection to us anyway & bound us from attempting to stop the illegal (by T.I.E's policy) farming of a very active alliance in this game. also if the authors of a policy will not abide by it, or give people the kind of grief you gave me, why praytell would anybody else abide by it? fix the policy, set it exactly step by step what is to happen when reporting a breach,(a,b,c,1,2,3,) & we will think about signing on again, otherwise why sign on to something that holds no meaning? I can honestly say that I have NEVER farmed or raided any T.I.E. member. can you, seaborgium, say the same thing about the Black Dragons?... nuff said...

Paladius wrote:

seaborgium wrote:The 7 day item that you are refurring to is due to how you spoke when you made contact with myself. Notice that how I became nice the more you were giving information. Also after you told me that you had contacted 2 people already. I confirmed that and our player paid.

Also I could have done what has been put down from on high in TIE and that is you guys didn't have a published policy. But I personally believe in that if you require others to do something you should follow it.

We did have a published farming policy at the time of the illegal hit curumo made, which is the same as TIE's policy or was supposed to be the same. And by the way the pm conversation between you and kingkongfan1 has been fowarded to me and the rest of my alliance I know the truth. Also there is nothing in the breach procedure that mention anything about 7 days. Im trying to decide if i should post the conversation between you and kong.

The curumo hit? I thought this was all taken care of a long time ago

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:

Paladius wrote:

seaborgium wrote:The 7 day item that you are refurring to is due to how you spoke when you made contact with myself. Notice that how I became nice the more you were giving information. Also after you told me that you had contacted 2 people already. I confirmed that and our player paid.

Also I could have done what has been put down from on high in TIE and that is you guys didn't have a published policy. But I personally believe in that if you require others to do something you should follow it.

We did have a published farming policy at the time of the illegal hit curumo made, which is the same as TIE's policy or was supposed to be the same. And by the way the pm conversation between you and kingkongfan1 has been fowarded to me and the rest of my alliance I know the truth. Also there is nothing in the breach procedure that mention anything about 7 days. Im trying to decide if i should post the conversation between you and kong.

The curumo hit? I thought this was all taken care of a long time ago

It was, finally, after 2 weeks of hammer&crowbarring, Dragoness finally got her compensation. T.I.E. is upset because a World Republic member hit our 2ic Quest, & we seceded from a mostly useless policy that kept me from handling the situation cause of the first hit clause... then they want to start kicking us around in the forums... They figured out what you already know... large or small Kong bows down to no one. & neither will the Dragons as long as I have anything to say about it...

also what is the point of posting a "farming" policy when the policy isn't adhered to when people keep breaking it then want to give you a headache as you try to get compensation? also what is the point if I have to follow the "defenders" policy instead of my own? thats two policies I have to keep up with. oh wait according to my policy the hit is legal, but using yours its illegal. wooh now whose policy do I use? if I use yours what is the point of me having a posted policy. if I use mine we go to war, WOW... I have said it once & i'll say it for the last time... It is stupid to have multiple farming policies to keep up with... you want a posted farming policy from the Black Dragons... here is one; "Don't Farm A Dragon" is that plain enough for everyone?...

The 72 hours that you are talking about doesn't come into affect till the 2nd hit has been talked about. Also it is the allaince that was hit to come forward. Its 72 hours from that point that the timer is started. I am sure once we got everything boiled down and I talked with Ian and SA about it, it was less then 72 hours....

ian wrote:3rd Breach of alliance policy, or a failure to provide compensation within 72hours of the 2nd warning being sent = Military force is allowed, and the player in question is not permitted to farm the alliance of the victim for a 14 day period after they are massed.

kingkongfan1 wrote:fix the policy, set it exactly step by step what is to happen when reporting a breach,(a,b,c,1,2,3,)

I am sure that it covers 90% of that, if you feel that it is missing something post it up. The 2 allainces that created it are happy with it. I am sure that if you find something missing they are more then willing to take a look and fix it if needed.


Have I hit BD, yes I have. Once I didn't make a profit I stopped. When I was asked not to farm 1 member as much as I had I slowed down. I have since hit maybe 1-2 times. I do not think I have raided any BD, you all are active and never have enough UU out. If you ever happen to have enough and I can hit over the Def at a profit margin then I may consider it.

kingkongfan1 wrote:It was, finally, after 2 weeks of hammer&crowbarring, Dragoness finally got her compensation. T.I.E. is upset because a World Republic member hit our 2ic Quest, & we seceded from a mostly useless policy that kept me from handling the situation cause of the first hit clause...

2weeks from when? have dragoness send me the Trade where she was given back the items and I will check the time stamp, if it was over 72 hours then I will deal with that. I not sure why TIE would be upset about something to do with WR. I will let you think about what Ian has already said in regards to that.

@Kingofshinobis1 : this topic reminds me of some other people in the game that try to stir the pot and make things worse then they seem instead of asking to speak to someone about issues they had in the way things were handled. It also reminds me of 2 alliances that showed 1 thing and accepted something that offered some protection, till they didn't like how it fit and then dropped it.

seaborgium wrote:The 72 hours that you are talking about doesn't come into affect till the 2nd hit has been talked about. Also it is the allaince that was hit to come forward. Its 72 hours from that point that the timer is started. I am sure once we got everything boiled down and I talked with Ian and SA about it, it was less then 72 hours....

ian wrote:3rd Breach of alliance policy, or a failure to provide compensation within 72hours of the 2nd warning being sent = Military force is allowed, and the player in question is not permitted to farm the alliance of the victim for a 14 day period after they are massed.

kingkongfan1 wrote:fix the policy, set it exactly step by step what is to happen when reporting a breach,(a,b,c,1,2,3,)

I am sure that it covers 90% of that, if you feel that it is missing something post it up. The 2 allainces that created it are happy with it. I am sure that if you find something missing they are more then willing to take a look and fix it if needed.


Have I hit BD, yes I have. Once I didn't make a profit I stopped. When I was asked not to farm 1 member as much as I had I slowed down. I have since hit maybe 1-2 times. I do not think I have raided any BD, you all are active and never have enough UU out. If you ever happen to have enough and I can hit over the Def at a profit margin then I may consider it.

kingkongfan1 wrote:It was, finally, after 2 weeks of hammer&crowbarring, Dragoness finally got her compensation. T.I.E. is upset because a World Republic member hit our 2ic Quest, & we seceded from a mostly useless policy that kept me from handling the situation cause of the first hit clause...

2weeks from when? have dragoness send me the Trade where she was given back the items and I will check the time stamp, if it was over 72 hours then I will deal with that. I not sure why TIE would be upset about something to do with WR. I will let you think about what Ian has already said in regards to that.

@Kingofshinobis1 : this topic reminds me of some other people in the game that try to stir the pot and make things worse then they seem instead of asking to speak to someone about issues they had in the way things were handled. It also reminds me of 2 alliances that showed 1 thing and accepted something that offered some protection, till they didn't like how it fit and then dropped it.

2 weeks from when the hit took place, you want a time stamp you ask her yourself, also World Republic didn't author the policy we seceded from. T.I.E. did. or am I mistaken on that one also...

oh BTW- what makes you so honorable to hold out for a profit before hitting a Dragon? nobody else makes legal hits? what do you think started this to begin with?...

kingkongfan1 wrote:2 weeks from when the hit took place, you want a time stamp you ask her yourself, also World Republic didn't author the policy we seceded from. T.I.E. did. or am I mistaken on that one also...

oh BTW- what makes you so honorable to hold out for a profit before hitting a Dragon? nobody else makes legal hits? what do you think started this to begin with?...

The 72 hour window doesn't start when the hit is made, it starts from the time discussions stop. No WR didn't author they signed just as you did. They could have at that time said something or even now, no policy is ever set in stone. It can be smashed and a new one put in place. Yes our talks between you and I was over 2 illegal hits, which till now I thought were over. Since you have withdrawn from the policy. I look forward to diplomacy with you and BD, from what I see right now, you guys are going to take any hits that come over if a profit was made or not. You all will try to stand up, fight back but I not sure how that will go over. I hope for your alliance that you and others look over the current policy and offer suggestions on how to improve it.

Ok guys. Enough.

Black Dragons was invited to sign this policy as a courtesy - nothing more. It was a small nod in your direction at the progress you ve been making in growing, and a small recognition of this (at the time in the other topic in the general area discussing alliance-strategies BD asked if they could be included next time the alliance's were compared).

If you want to leave - thats fine. Noone's upset or bothered about it. I certainly won't be loosing any sleep over it.

The main aim of this policy, as it remains to this day - is to lay out an agreement which The Imperium can use when dealing with FIRE and World Republic breaches, and vice-versa.

This came into being to prevent a blood-bath on the server - which is what it would be - if The Imperium had gone to war against World Republic & FIRE - which is what would have happened (both sides were fully-mobilised and prepped for war). That war would have literally cost 10's of millions of UU between the various sides and trillions of kuwal.

The impact of the war would have affected everyone - as with FIRE, TIE & WR fully involved in war, the galactic market & overall game-wide market to a large extent would have stopped. Outside players & parties would likely end up inadvertently getting involved in war (i.e. if they farm someone's who just been massed a.k.a. inadvertently vulturing - and that player/ alliance demands the resources back, and they think its a legitimate hit which then leads to their being massed etc...) and perhaps even more alliances would be dragged in.

THATS why this policy exists - to help prevent issues arising between TIE, WR & FIRE. So.. by all means leave. Your invitation to sign this was a courtesy/ recognition - you are free to leave whenever you like. TIE certainly is not upset or bothered about it - so please don't think otherwise.

The only thing i ll say is that now if you farm other alliances and breach their policies, they are not bound to deal with those breaches as the above procedure lays out - they could just mass you straight away if they wanted.

Likewise if people breach your policy - your now free to enforce your policy how you like. But be warned: Before you could have enforced your policy via the above procedure and the other signatories (FIRE, TIE & WR) would be bound to accept the enforcement via the procedure. Now we aren't bound to accept anything - its entirely possible you can be told where to go if you try enforcing a policy (though TIE *won't* be that undiplomatic) - but you ve now made that possibility a option for the other powers.

Thats about all that has to be said.

Personally i think your actions are rash, ill thought out and immature - to leave the policy because a single WR player made a single breach of your barely-known policy - and because the policy doesn't allow you to demand compensation or doesn't allow you to use force after a single breach.

People make mistakes. People don't necessarily understand/ know thing's they should know (i.e. policies) and the game mechanics fluctuate (i.e. strikes). THATS why there is room for mistakes in the policy - because to deny that mistakes happen is to deny reality & is frankly unfair and unjust.

If that was a Imperium member and you demanded compensation after a single breach/ before ever issuing a educational a warning - i would tell you where to go & make ready to defend the member in question.

Thats all i have to say on the matter.

@ seaborgium
Kong sent a message to the top 7 alliances stating that there should be a universial farming policy to avoid confusion which two people responded to. The reason it took 7 days to report the illegal hit was because somehow the numbers on our farming policy were off and we were thinking it was a legal hit until we got the right numbers. We adopted TIE's farming policy way before the hit by curumo which stated

1power to 200 million defence power: Minimum of 50million profit needed
200million power to 500million defence power: Minimum of 100million profit needed
500million power to 1billion defence power: Minimum of 200million profit needed
1billion defence to 2billion defence power: Minimum of 400million profit needed
2billion+ defence power: Minimum of 800million profit needed.


this policy can be found on the the imperium thread
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The policy now states

5 Tier policy:

1power to 200 million defence power: Minimum of 75million profit needed
200million power to 500million defence power: Minimum of 150million profit needed
500million power to 1billion defence power: Minimum of 300million profit needed
1billion defence to 2billion defence power: Minimum of 600million profit needed
2billion+ defence power: Minimum of 1.2billion profit needed.

Do you see how it is possible to get confused? Because of the confusion there was arguing amongst our alliance mostly Kong and Dragoness about wether the farm was legal or not. When kong realized he had been given the wrong numbers that is when he sent the message to you.

There was no official post by BD as to what your policy was. I have nothing else to say on the matter. I feel I have proven what I had to say.

You all sent a message out to the leaders, when everything else had been posted here... Or contact was made over MSN.

I will be honest, there is no way a universal policy will be in place, TIE income is higher then WR, FIRE and most. So the hitting of us is more profitable then us hitting either of them or most of the server. Which is what Ian has said.

I highly recommend that you work out a policy that works for you guys. Also review this breech policy and made recommendations on how to make it better.

I for one would make sure that TIEs HC reviews what you all have to say and decide what to do from there.

As for now I can't talk any longer, we are getting busy at work once again. I have said my peace on this matter.

seaborgium wrote:There was no official post by BD as to what your policy was. I have nothing else to say on the matter. I feel I have proven what I had to say.

You all sent a message out to the leaders, when everything else had been posted here... Or contact was made over MSN.

I will be honest, there is no way a universal policy will be in place, TIE income is higher then WR, FIRE and most. So the hitting of us is more profitable then us hitting either of them or most of the server. Which is what Ian has said.

I highly recommend that you work out a policy that works for you guys. Also review this breech policy and made recommendations on how to make it better.

I for one would make sure that TIEs HC reviews what you all have to say and decide what to do from there.

As for now I can't talk any longer, we are getting busy at work once again. I have said my peace on this matter.

The post was in the black dragons forums i guess we never got around to posting it in the aw forums.

quote="seaborgium"]

kingkongfan1 wrote:2 weeks from when the hit took place, you want a time stamp you ask her yourself, also World Republic didn't author the policy we seceded from. T.I.E. did. or am I mistaken on that one also...

oh BTW- what makes you so honorable to hold out for a profit before hitting a Dragon? nobody else makes legal hits? what do you think started this to begin with?...

The 72 hour window doesn't start when the hit is made, it starts from the time discussions stop. No WR didn't author they signed just as you did. They could have at that time said something or even now, no policy is ever set in stone. It can be smashed and a new one put in place. Yes our talks between you and I was over 2 illegal hits, which till now I thought were over. Since you have withdrawn from the policy. I look forward to diplomacy with you and BD, from what I see right now, you guys are going to take any hits that come over if a profit was made or not. You all will try to stand up, fight back but I not sure how that will go over. I hope for your alliance that you and others look over the current policy and offer suggestions on how to improve it.[/quote]

first of all lets clear this up, this was over till you brought it back up. 2) the 72 hrs. started from when I first contacted who? SA47? 7 days before I contacted you? I think by anyones math 7 days is longer than 72 hours, or was that the day I skipped school? so what T.I.E. becomes the server bully that it tries soooo hard to portray that it isn't? IDK T.I.E. has never protected the Dragons, so what praytell has changed? we took hits before your policy, we'll take hits after, what is your point? you think that signing the breach policy protected us somehow? well (busted bubble) it didn't. & the sad part is all the hell I had to go through to get T.I.E. to abide its own policy...

you want suggestions on how to fix the policy...
1) all agree to a "universal" farm policy...
2) appoint 1-2 members from all alliances, (who are interested in partisipating) to moniter all farming activity, they will convene & meet about & decide upon the legality of any given hit, then they will decide proper dispersal of compensation...
3) 1, a player gets hit.
2, said player reports hit to council.
3, council has meeting over legality of hit.
4, council makes statement, legal/illegal. if legal no compensation, if illegal compensation made a.s.a.p. or say 3 days max, or whatever is decided upon.

attempting to let alliances police themselves is pointless, as a player once stated to me, alliance-mates comes before anyone else... so if a T.I.E. member illegally farms a Dragon for example. we let the council, (which is made up of 1-2 T.I.E. members, 1-2 (FIRE-0) members & 1-2 Black Dragons members make the final decision on the matter... that is my suggestion...

& I am no longer a Diplomat for anyone, I have been speaking as myself; a player in this game, as soon as the Dragons decide upon the person/persons who will be handling Diplomatic relations then I am sure it will be posted...

@seaborgium- what did you set out to prove? I'm missing it.
@Ian- we are not as insignificant as you think us. lol...
doesn't matter as we mostly farm inactives, I guess it was to much to ask for ya'll to hold true to your own policy when farming a Dragon...

ian wrote:
Personally i think your actions are rash, ill thought out and immature - to leave the policy because a single WR player made a single breach of your barely-known policy - and because the policy doesn't allow you to demand compensation or doesn't allow you to use force after a single breach.

WR has nothing to do with us backing out of the policy, just because one of my alliance members got farmed by a world republic member today doesn't mean that is the reason why we're breaking away from the breach procedure. Curumo a TIE member made 2 illegal hits on one of my members, when kong requested dragoness to be compensated, seaborgium in my opinion rudely stated since the hit took place 7 days ago there will be no compensation. The decision to withdraw from the policy didn't happen over night. Does that help you understand any clearer?

kingkongfan1 wrote:

seaborgium wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:2 weeks from when the hit took place, you want a time stamp you ask her yourself, also World Republic didn't author the policy we seceded from. T.I.E. did. or am I mistaken on that one also...

oh BTW- what makes you so honorable to hold out for a profit before hitting a Dragon? nobody else makes legal hits? what do you think started this to begin with?...

The 72 hour window doesn't start when the hit is made, it starts from the time discussions stop. No WR didn't author they signed just as you did. They could have at that time said something or even now, no policy is ever set in stone. It can be smashed and a new one put in place. Yes our talks between you and I was over 2 illegal hits, which till now I thought were over. Since you have withdrawn from the policy. I look forward to diplomacy with you and BD, from what I see right now, you guys are going to take any hits that come over if a profit was made or not. You all will try to stand up, fight back but I not sure how that will go over. I hope for your alliance that you and others look over the current policy and offer suggestions on how to improve it.

first of all lets clear this up, this was over till you brought it back up. 2) the 72 hrs. started from when I first contacted who? SA47? 7 days before I contacted you? I think by anyones math 7 days is longer than 72 hours, or was that the day I skipped school? so what T.I.E. becomes the server bully that it tries soooo hard to portray that it isn't? IDK T.I.E. has never protected the Dragons, so what praytell has changed? we took hits before your policy, we'll take hits after, what is your point? you think that signing the breach policy protected us somehow? well (busted bubble) it didn't. & the sad part is all the hell I had to go through to get T.I.E. to abide its own policy...

you want suggestions on how to fix the policy...
1) all agree to a "universal" farm policy...
2) appoint 1-2 members from all alliances, (who are interested in partisipating) to moniter all farming activity, they will convene & meet about & decide upon the legality of any given hit, then they will decide proper dispersal of compensation...
3) 1, a player gets hit.
2, said player reports hit to council.
3, council has meeting over legality of hit.
4, council makes statement, legal/illegal. if legal no compensation, if illegal compensation made a.s.a.p. or say 3 days max, or whatever is decided upon.

attempting to let alliances police themselves is pointless, as a player once stated to me, alliance-mates comes before anyone else... so if a T.I.E. member illegally farms a Dragon for example. we let the council, (which is made up of 1-2 T.I.E. members, 1-2 (FIRE-0) members & 1-2 Black Dragons members make the final decision on the matter... that is my suggestion...

& I am no longer a Diplomat for anyone, I have been speaking as myself; a player in this game, as soon as the Dragons decide upon the person/persons who will be handling Diplomatic relations then I am sure it will be posted...

@seaborgium- what did you set out to prove? I'm missing it.
@Ian- we are not as insignificant as you think us. lol...
doesn't matter as we mostly farm inactives, I guess it was to much to ask for ya'll to hold true to your own policy when farming a Dragon...

I have another suggestion, every leader of every alliance should have a copy of everyone elses farming policy, which can also take away confusion. You know since some feel that a universial farming policy won't work.

kingkongfan1 wrote:first of all lets clear this up, this was over till you brought it back up. 2) the 72 hrs. started from when I first contacted who? SA47? 7 days before I contacted you? I think by anyones math 7 days is longer than 72 hours, or was that the day I skipped school? so what T.I.E. becomes the server bully that it tries soooo hard to portray that it isn't? IDK T.I.E. has never protected the Dragons, so what praytell has changed? we took hits before your policy, we'll take hits after, what is your point? you think that signing the breach policy protected us somehow? well (busted bubble) it didn't. & the sad part is all the hell I had to go through to get T.I.E. to abide its own policy...

you want suggestions on how to fix the policy...
1) all agree to a "universal" farm policy...
2) appoint 1-2 members from all alliances, (who are interested in partisipating) to moniter all farming activity, they will convene & meet about & decide upon the legality of any given hit, then they will decide proper dispersal of compensation...
3) 1, a player gets hit.
2, said player reports hit to council.
3, council has meeting over legality of hit.
4, council makes statement, legal/illegal. if legal no compensation, if illegal compensation made a.s.a.p. or say 3 days max, or whatever is decided upon.

attempting to let alliances police themselves is pointless, as a player once stated to me, alliance-mates comes before anyone else... so if a T.I.E. member illegally farms a Dragon for example. we let the council, (which is made up of 1-2 T.I.E. members, 1-2 (FIRE-0) members & 1-2 Black Dragons members make the final decision on the matter... that is my suggestion...

& I am no longer a Diplomat for anyone, I have been speaking as myself; a player in this game, as soon as the Dragons decide upon the person/persons who will be handling Diplomatic relations then I am sure it will be posted...

@seaborgium- what did you set out to prove? I'm missing it.
@Ian- we are not as insignificant as you think us. lol...
doesn't matter as we mostly farm inactives, I guess it was to much to ask for ya'll to hold true to your own policy when farming a Dragon...

Actually - since you seem so hell bent on dragging T.I.E through the mud it is Black Dragons in the wrong.

Yes Dragonness contacted me - at a time when i had assignments and deadlines due in. I get contacted by about a dozen people a day and never have chance to check all of them on my most busy day - a back log appears which i clear when i have time.

Now.. here is the problem for you guys. The breach-procedure is not for individual player's to contact other players over - it for the alliance's enforcing the policy to contact. I.e. a individual of T.I.E who's had a farming hit done on him outside of our breach won't contact the player - a official from The Imperium (normally myself or seaborgium) will contact the person and make it clear its *officially* from The Imperium.

There is a distinction between individuals and alliances. If a random player from one of the alliances contacts another - who's to say they are speaking on behalf of the alliance, who's to say what they say is supported by their alliance, and who's to say what they are stating is accurate for the alliance? I ve played games for a long time - and on many cases i ve been threatened by nobody's in a strong alliance threatening me with the vengeance and anger of their alliance... if i took them to be speaking on behalf of their alliance, well it wouldn't end well for them.

Fortunately i recognise a distinction between what individuals say and what their actual official alliance is. I would suggest you give thought to that also.

Now... back on the point. Dragoness is as far as everyone's concerned not a official of Black Dragons - if she is.. how is anyone suppossed to know? There is no public statement, and she's never been seen on this forum posting even. For all any of us know she's a normal ordinary player without the authority to speak on behalf of her alliance.

Her contacting Curomo consequently does not count as "issuing a warning" which satisfies the criteria of the first breach:

agreement wrote:1st breach of alliance policy = education & warning PM sent to the player committing the breach, which educates the person on the farm policy and warns to wait for the target to have more kuwal out the next time.The player's leader is also contacted.

If Black Dragon's was officially warning Curomo - then you should have officially warned him and made it damn clear that it was a officially on behalf of Black Dragons. Even if this was done... i was not contacted over the first breach to my knowledge. Contacting anyone else in The Imperium is not sufficient - for under the treaty is specifically states "The Player's leader is also contacted". Contacting SA47 was not enough - I am the leader of The Imperium. I was not contacted by a official of Black Dragons.

By the time Dragonness contacted me it was concerning her being hit by Curomo for a 2nd time after she had "told him". Again though - who's to say she is speaking on behalf of Black Dragons? And again - by not informing me of the original warning you did not satisfy the requirements for a first-warning for a first breach.

After this you guys finally contacted Seaborgium about Curomo - you finally contacted a *official* of The Imperium designated for dealing with the farming policy - and you contacted him *officially* on behalf of Black Dragons. The issue was then quickly sorted and fixed. In all this time i was never contacted by a official of Black Dragons - merely a Black Dragon's member called Dragonness. Going off that logic you seem to be applying any member of any alliance can speak for their alliance. Anyone want to try and work out as to the chaos which that is going to cause?

Strictly speaking Curomo was on his first warning *after* you contacted Seaborgium officially. Before that all contact was between Dragonness (not a BD official), and curomo (not a TIE official) and there was no Black-Dragon's official to be seen. Unless of course one of BD's officials contacted SA47... in which case - well, he's not the alliance leader... so you didn't follow the procedure eithier way.

So... don't sit there and winge because it took a long time for The Imperium to deal with your "issue". Next time do what all the other alliance's do - namely have a official for Black Dragons (i.e. Myself/ Seaborgium are officials for TIE, Lord Ishurue's a official for FIRE, Kenzu's a official for WR etc..) contact the player in question who's committed the breach, while at the same time contacting the designated official (default setting = Alliance leader, and in TIE's case Seaborgium's been appointed publically as diplomat, but its still requested to contact me as well) of the alliance with the player in question.

Its that simple.

If we start viewing what individual player's say as speaking on behalf of their alliances... then thing's will get very complicated, very quickly. Thats why alliances make a habit of having a command-chain and making it clear who speaks on behalf of their alliance...

Edit: As for being insignificant. I never stated you are insignificant - however to put your position into perspective:

On May the 23rd:

The Imperium's army size was 228,031,336
FIRE's army size was 134,455,854
World Republic's army size was: 112,239,113

Thats about 3 days ago. Right now Black Dragons total army size is 10,247,738.

I don't post that to make you look insignificant - i post it because i honestly believe there is no way you can know the size of World Republic, FIRE and The Imperium... simply because you probably lack a strong enough covert among BD's ranks to see some of the larger player's of FIRE, WR & TIE... and therefore lack the ability to make a accurate assessment of the size of the alliances.

I just hope you don't make a mistake or miscalculation when it comes to enforcing your farming policy i.e. such as threatening or massing player's for first-time breaches... it could lead to your being in a bad position which is unnecessary.

Double Edit:

About The Imperium policy being applied equally to Black Dragons? My total army size is 11,226,400 i.e. i m larger than BD alone. Are you seriously advocating that a policy designed to allow player's such as myself (and larger players) to have a reasonable (i.e. about 6 - 7 hours) income out before having to start worrying about being farmed.. be applied to Black Dragons?

Our profit margins are large because it reflects the size of our average army size per player (4.6million i.e. 2 of TIE's average member's almost match Black Dragon's in size). It reflects our higher incomes - and thus there is a slightly larger profit margin to give our player's a chance to have out a reasonable (i.e. 7 to 8hours) income out without worrying about being farmed.

If Black Dragon's adopts a similar policy... your members will be able to have a lot more (in terms of hours/ turns worth) of your income out than what a normal Imperium member would - simply because a TIE member makes a lot more per turn.

This would inevitably lead to an absurd and ultimately unfair situation: That a much more active Imperium member could be "legally" farmed - for say 16turns worth of income (i.e. 8hours), while a much less active Black Dragon's member could sit and go as high as 24 turns (i.e. 12hours) of income out without worrying about being farmed.

A more active player would get farmed while a less active player gets to sit safe.

How is that fair?

ian wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:first of all lets clear this up, this was over till you brought it back up. 2) the 72 hrs. started from when I first contacted who? SA47? 7 days before I contacted you? I think by anyones math 7 days is longer than 72 hours, or was that the day I skipped school? so what T.I.E. becomes the server bully that it tries soooo hard to portray that it isn't? IDK T.I.E. has never protected the Dragons, so what praytell has changed? we took hits before your policy, we'll take hits after, what is your point? you think that signing the breach policy protected us somehow? well (busted bubble) it didn't. & the sad part is all the hell I had to go through to get T.I.E. to abide its own policy...

you want suggestions on how to fix the policy...
1) all agree to a "universal" farm policy...
2) appoint 1-2 members from all alliances, (who are interested in partisipating) to moniter all farming activity, they will convene & meet about & decide upon the legality of any given hit, then they will decide proper dispersal of compensation...
3) 1, a player gets hit.
2, said player reports hit to council.
3, council has meeting over legality of hit.
4, council makes statement, legal/illegal. if legal no compensation, if illegal compensation made a.s.a.p. or say 3 days max, or whatever is decided upon.

attempting to let alliances police themselves is pointless, as a player once stated to me, alliance-mates comes before anyone else... so if a T.I.E. member illegally farms a Dragon for example. we let the council, (which is made up of 1-2 T.I.E. members, 1-2 (FIRE-0) members & 1-2 Black Dragons members make the final decision on the matter... that is my suggestion...

& I am no longer a Diplomat for anyone, I have been speaking as myself; a player in this game, as soon as the Dragons decide upon the person/persons who will be handling Diplomatic relations then I am sure it will be posted...

@seaborgium- what did you set out to prove? I'm missing it.
@Ian- we are not as insignificant as you think us. lol...
doesn't matter as we mostly farm inactives, I guess it was to much to ask for ya'll to hold true to your own policy when farming a Dragon...

Actually - since you seem so hell bent on dragging T.I.E through the mud it is Black Dragons in the wrong.

Yes Dragonness contacted me - at a time when i had assignments and deadlines due in. I get contacted by about a dozen people a day and never have chance to check all of them on my most busy day - a back log appears which i clear when i have time.

Now.. here is the problem for you guys. The breach-procedure is not for individual player's to contact other players over - it for the alliance's enforcing the policy to contact. I.e. a individual of T.I.E who's had a farming hit done on him outside of our breach won't contact the player - a official from The Imperium (normally myself or seaborgium) will contact the person and make it clear its *officially* from The Imperium.

There is a distinction between individuals and alliances. If a random player from one of the alliances contacts another - who's to say they are speaking on behalf of the alliance, who's to say what they say is supported by their alliance, and who's to say what they are stating is accurate for the alliance? I ve played games for a long time - and on many cases i ve been threatened by nobody's in a strong alliance threatening me with the vengeance and anger of their alliance... if i took them to be speaking on behalf of their alliance, well it wouldn't end well for them.

Fortunately i recognise a distinction between what individuals say and what their actual official alliance is. I would suggest you give thought to that also.

Now... back on the point. Dragoness is as far as everyone's concerned not a official of Black Dragons - if she is.. how is anyone suppossed to know? There is no public statement, and she's never been seen on this forum posting even. For all any of us know she's a normal ordinary player without the authority to speak on behalf of her alliance.

Her contacting Curomo consequently does not count as "issuing a warning" which satisfies the criteria of the first breach:

agreement wrote:1st breach of alliance policy = education & warning PM sent to the player committing the breach, which educates the person on the farm policy and warns to wait for the target to have more kuwal out the next time.The player's leader is also contacted.

If Black Dragon's was officially warning Curomo - then you should have officially warned him and made it damn clear that it was a officially on behalf of Black Dragons. Even if this was done... i was not contacted over the first breach to my knowledge. Contacting anyone else in The Imperium is not sufficient - for under the treaty is specifically states "The Player's leader is also contacted". Contacting SA47 was not enough - I am the leader of The Imperium. I was not contacted by a official of Black Dragons.

By the time Dragonness contacted me it was concerning her being hit by Curomo for a 2nd time after she had "told him". Again though - who's to say she is speaking on behalf of Black Dragons? And again - by not informing me of the original warning you did not satisfy the requirements for a first-warning for a first breach.

After this you guys finally contacted Seaborgium about Curomo - you finally contacted a *official* of The Imperium designated for dealing with the farming policy - and you contacted him *officially* on behalf of Black Dragons. The issue was then quickly sorted and fixed. In all this time i was never contacted by a official of Black Dragons - merely a Black Dragon's member called Dragonness. Going off that logic you seem to be applying any member of any alliance can speak for their alliance. Anyone want to try and work out as to the chaos which that is going to cause?

Strictly speaking Curomo was on his first warning *after* you contacted Seaborgium officially. Before that all contact was between Dragonness (not a BD official), and curomo (not a TIE official) and there was no Black-Dragon's official to be seen. Unless of course one of BD's officials contacted SA47... in which case - well, he's not the alliance leader... so you didn't follow the procedure eithier way.

So... don't sit there and winge because it took a long time for The Imperium to deal with your "issue". Next time do what all the other alliance's do - namely have a official for Black Dragons (i.e. Myself/ Seaborgium are officials for TIE, Lord Ishurue's a official for FIRE, Kenzu's a official for WR etc..) contact the player in question who's committed the breach, while at the same time contacting the designated official (default setting = Alliance leader, and in TIE's case Seaborgium's been appointed publically as diplomat, but its still requested to contact me as well) of the alliance with the player in question.

Its that simple.

If we start viewing what individual player's say as speaking on behalf of their alliances... then thing's will get very complicated, very quickly. Thats why alliances make a habit of having a command-chain and making it clear who speaks on behalf of their alliance...

Edit: As for being insignificant. I never stated you are insignificant - however to put your position into perspective:

On May the 23rd:

The Imperium's army size was 228,031,336
FIRE's army size was 134,455,854
World Republic's army size was: 112,239,113

Thats about 3 days ago. Right now Black Dragons total army size is 10,247,738.

I don't post that to make you look insignificant - i post it because i honestly believe there is no way you can know the size of World Republic, FIRE and The Imperium... simply because you probably lack a strong enough covert among BD's ranks to see some of the larger player's of FIRE, WR & TIE... and therefore lack the ability to make a accurate assessment of the size of the alliances.

I just hope you don't make a mistake or miscalculation when it comes to enforcing your farming policy i.e. such as threatening or massing player's for first-time breaches... it could lead to your being in a bad position which is unnecessary.

Double Edit:

About The Imperium policy being applied equally to Black Dragons? My total army size is 11,226,400 i.e. i m larger than BD alone. Are you seriously advocating that a policy designed to allow player's such as myself (and larger players) to have a reasonable (i.e. about 6 - 7 hours) income out before having to start worrying about being farmed.. be applied to Black Dragons?

Our profit margins are large because it reflects the size of our average army size per player (4.6million i.e. 2 of TIE's average member's almost match Black Dragon's in size). It reflects our higher incomes - and thus there is a slightly larger profit margin to give our player's a chance to have out a reasonable (i.e. 7 to 8hours) income out without worrying about being farmed.

If Black Dragon's adopts a similar policy... your members will be able to have a lot more (in terms of hours/ turns worth) of your income out than what a normal Imperium member would - simply because a TIE member makes a lot more per turn.

This would inevitably lead to an absurd and ultimately unfair situation: That a much more active Imperium member could be "legally" farmed - for say 16turns worth of income (i.e. 8hours), while a much less active Black Dragon's member could sit and go as high as 24 turns (i.e. 12hours) of income out without worrying about being farmed.

A more active player would get farmed while a less active player gets to sit safe.

How is that fair?

hey remember that vague, unclear, & exploitable language I refered to earlier... we'll you just cleared some of it up, I don't see in the post of the breach policy where it states half of what you just spouted off. it doesn't specify this official must contact that official. so you just exploited your own policy. & you keep throwing numbers at me like I don't know how big you are. I'll say it again, I am not afraid of any of you. destroy my account, sit on me it doesn't matter...oh I'm sorry, that stuff got brought up that was dead & gone, & should have stayed that way, but I think that T.I.E. has done a better job of showing how flawed their own policy is better than I ever could. but as you pointed out it wasn't designed for us, just the top three... enjoy it folks...

Actually The Imperium's policy isn't designed for the top 3 - its designed for The Imperium alone. Thats it.

I ve already expressed the view concerning that if eithier World Republic or FIRE attempted to implement a similar policy as TIE it would be unsuitable and would result in a amendment to T.I.E's policy - as was the case when World Republic implemented a very similar policy to T.I.E (The FIRE policy) - which has the effect of making farming of World Republic to be very difficult - T.I.E reacted by limiting the number of hits to be conducted on us to 8 a week.

Our policy basically has one objective it seeks to achieve: To limit the effects of farming on The Imperium by a identified party (i.e. FIRE/ WR) to roughly match the benefits gained by The Imperium from farming those of that identified party (i.e. FIRE/ WR).

Roughly speaking then - if T.I.E's farming say 80billion kuwal a week from the identified party - our farming policy would seek to limit farming of us by the identified party to about 80billion kuwal a week. This way damage is restricted to The Imperium and farming of our ranks by other's will not have a too much of a adverse effect.

Of course... its generally impossible to precisely achieve a balance... but thats the principle/ aim behind it. As long as we come somewhere close its good enough.

I fail to see what your seeking to achieve - your busy telling everyone The Imperium doesn't apply its own farming policy when we farm others? Your absolutely correct - its no big secret.

There's actually some pretty huge posts by myself in several other topics which deals precisely with setting out why this is the case.

The simple fact is this: IF The Imperium has a policy which seeks to afford some protection to our 4.6million average size players - and we then applied that policy to the rest of the server when we farm - the effects would be basically our ability to farm would be massively impaired and hugely restricted... simply because the smaller player's would gain protection aimed at much higher income's than they have (lower incomes = takes longer to reach the "legal" profit requirements. The longer it takes... the more turns go past - therefore the less active people can be, or alternatively they can remain pretty active and simply never have enough kuwal out to be "legally" farmed).

On the other hand if The Imperium drops our farming policy and then farms other's by the same-low policy - farming of us would massively increase to huge levels given our size/ wealth vs. most other's - and we would be unable come anywhere near close at matching that farmed from us by our own farming (High incomes = takes far less time to hit "legal" profit requirements - therefore the less turns it takes to be farmable, eithier people will need to be more active, or they ll be farmed more... and when you consider the existing policy can barely generally allow more than 8hours income out now for a lot of people.... there's only so much more active you can be).

Eithier way The Imperium looses out. Thats why we ve long since decided to stop playing ball with the server, and instead adopted a policy which some people do view as unfair & "flawed" - but one which at the very least puts The Imperium's interests as a priority over all other considerations (such as looking like "fair" player's to people who ve actually really not thought things through very well).

Fortunately we aren't now the only high-income generating power. I believe FIRE is beginning to experience increased farming-issues given their rapid and strong economic growth. As they get larger they ll find the amount they farm vs. the amount stolen from them gradually gets closer and closer together. One day it may even swing in favour of the amount stolen from them exceeding the amount they farm from a identified party.

This means hopefully people will start being a bit more sympathetic to The Imperium's views when they find themselves increasingly facing the same (albeit more reduced) issues. It might even present a useful common-ground on which to meet and come up with mutual solutions/ policies/ idea's to help combat such issues.

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

As for unclear & exploitable language. Does it or does it not clearly state that the alliance leader of the player in question should be contacted when a warning is issued? You can't get any clearer than that. I actually can't think of a way of putting it simpler. A pre-school baby who's just learnt to read could probably understand that.

Failure to contact the alliance leader = a failure to follow the procedure. Dragonness contacting me after curomo's "2nd breach" for the first time means she didn't contact me for the first breach... hey presto - Black Dragon's can't complain when it didn't follow the procedure.

Its that simple.

I must be blind then, I don't see in the writing it says who contacts who .....

found it wow i am blind

1st breach of alliance policy = education & warning PM sent to the player committing the breach, which educates the person on the farm policy and warns to wait for the target to have more kuwal out the next time.The player's leader is also contacted.

ian wrote:
As for unclear & exploitable language. Does it or does it not clearly state that the alliance leader of the player in question should be contacted when a warning is issued? You can't get any clearer than that. I actually can't think of a way of putting it simpler. A pre-school baby who's just learnt to read could probably understand that.

Failure to contact the alliance leader = a failure to follow the procedure. Dragonness contacting me after curomo's "2nd breach" for the first time means she didn't contact me for the first breach... hey presto - Black Dragon's can't complain when it didn't follow the procedure.

Its that simple.

Is it just me or are you being a complete douche bag, you're worse than kenzu LOL . It doesn't state who should contact the leader of the alliance of the player in question. Apparantly you need to be clearer than that. You were contacted so i don't see what your problem is. First breach should count as a first breach. I believe i sent you a message regarding this issue not too long ago.

Paladius wrote:

ian wrote:
As for unclear & exploitable language. Does it or does it not clearly state that the alliance leader of the player in question should be contacted when a warning is issued? You can't get any clearer than that. I actually can't think of a way of putting it simpler. A pre-school baby who's just learnt to read could probably understand that.

Failure to contact the alliance leader = a failure to follow the procedure. Dragonness contacting me after curomo's "2nd breach" for the first time means she didn't contact me for the first breach... hey presto - Black Dragon's can't complain when it didn't follow the procedure.

Its that simple.

Is it just me or are you being a complete douche bag, you're worse than kenzu LOL . It doesn't state who should contact the leader of the alliance of the player in question. Apparantly you need to be clearer than that. You were contacted so i don't see what your problem is. First breach should count as a first breach. I believe i sent you a message regarding this issue not too long ago.

I was contacted on the 2nd breach. The message to me went somewhere along the lines of "curomo was warned about a week ago blablablablablaba.... I want compensation or i m massing him". Can't remember the exact message... but contacting me complaining that Curomo has *already* been warned would kinda imply that you neglected to contact me for the *first* time he was warned... or am i the only one who can put 2 and 2 together and come to 4?

The procedure is clear - for each and every breach you contact the alliance-leader in question. Not just for the 2nd breach.

hey Ian... you already did that already,( make up your own policy as you go along) so what has changed?

hey seaborgium... exactly Who contacts the players leader? Ian already stated he was contacted by dragoness twice.

look seriously guys, I have had fun today but this has to end, I am getting tired. you know we have been at this all day. I didn't even get a chance to speak with Kenzu because of screwing around with you guys...
to me size doesn't matter, cause no matter how big you are, there is always someone bigger... in life. in this game, I fear no one, no matter what size you are. I have heard what you have said today. & its here in the forums if I forget... respect begets respect I tried respecting you guys... I got a lot of grief for my effort...

seaborgium wrote:I must be blind then, I don't see in the writing it says who contacts who .....

found it wow i am blind

1st breach of alliance policy = education & warning PM sent to the player committing the breach, which educates the person on the farm policy and warns to wait for the target to have more kuwal out the next time.The player's leader is also contacted.

Oh no you're not blind, your just a sarcastic ass there is a major difference. Maybe there is some kind of language barrier, i guess i should learn how to speak stupidish the language of idiots. See i can be sarcastic to LOL this is getting boring so i guess im done.

kingkongfan1 wrote:hey Ian... you already did that already,( make up your own policy as you go along) so what has changed?

hey seaborgium... exactly Who contacts the players leader? Ian already stated he was contacted by dragoness twice.

look seriously guys, I have had fun today but this has to end, I am getting tired. you know we have been at this all day. I didn't even get a chance to speak with Kenzu because of screwing around with you guys...
to me size doesn't matter, cause no matter how big you are, there is always someone bigger... in life. in this game, I fear no one, no matter what size you are. I have heard what you have said today. & its here in the forums if I forget... respect begets respect I tried respecting you guys... I got a lot of grief for my effort...

You consistently complain that The Imperium treated Black Dragons unfairly. You consistently drag our name through the dirt. You consistently argue with us. You consistently winge about the Breach Procedure. You consistently winge about the way The Imperium handled the situation.

That is what your doing.

Yet you completely neglect to mention that for all of the suppossed above - Black Dragons still got compensated and every-thing worked out fine in the end. If the breach-procedure is so mucked up and being so exploited by The Imperium... then why did it result in curomo's compensating Dragoness and the procedure being followed?

You ve accussed myself and The Imperium of exploiting the policy to our own ends. You ve stated it several times - yet the reality is this: Dragonness got compensated and the procedure yielded results.

Thats totally unfair and frankly a piss-take. To winge about something which ultimately worked, to accuse a power of exploiting and being unfair when that same power actually gave you what you wanted - when clearly we could have just ignored you - is completely ridiculous.

Your right - respect begets respect. If thats how you want to portray The Imperium after ultimately everything worked out ok - then thats fine. But next time Black Dragon's have a problem with a Imperium member you ll find you ll be hitting your heads on a brick wall trying to make progress. Clearly sorting your issue you had out hasn't achieved anything as far as your concerned - so ignoring the next one will at the least save myself and seaborgium a lot of time and effort.

Paladius wrote:

seaborgium wrote:I must be blind then, I don't see in the writing it says who contacts who .....

found it wow i am blind

1st breach of alliance policy = education & warning PM sent to the player committing the breach, which educates the person on the farm policy and warns to wait for the target to have more kuwal out the next time.The player's leader is also contacted.

Oh no you're not blind, your just a sarcastic ass there is a major difference. Maybe there is some kind of language barrier, i guess i should learn how to speak stupidish the language of idiots. See i can be sarcastic to LOL this is getting boring so i guess im done.

Careful. Some of us might be tempted to actually demonstrate in a very clear fashion just what being unfair & nasty can be really like.

I d suggest you take the time to cool down and actually reflect upon that despite everything you and Kingkong have said about The Imperium, Curomo and the breach procedure - that ultimately the breach procedure worked in getting The Imperium to compensate you for Curomo's "breaches".

Jeez....this is still going on? Give it a rest already lol.

ian wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:hey Ian... you already did that already,( make up your own policy as you go along) so what has changed?

hey seaborgium... exactly Who contacts the players leader? Ian already stated he was contacted by dragoness twice.

look seriously guys, I have had fun today but this has to end, I am getting tired. you know we have been at this all day. I didn't even get a chance to speak with Kenzu because of screwing around with you guys...
to me size doesn't matter, cause no matter how big you are, there is always someone bigger... in life. in this game, I fear no one, no matter what size you are. I have heard what you have said today. & its here in the forums if I forget... respect begets respect I tried respecting you guys... I got a lot of grief for my effort...

You consistently complain that The Imperium treated Black Dragons unfairly. You consistently drag our name through the dirt. You consistently argue with us. You consistently winge about the Breach Procedure. You consistently winge about the way The Imperium handled the situation.

That is what your doing.

Yet you completely neglect to mention that for all of the suppossed above - Black Dragons still got compensated and every-thing worked out fine in the end. If the breach-procedure is so mucked up and being so exploited by The Imperium... then why did it result in curomo's compensating Dragoness and the procedure being followed?

You ve accussed myself and The Imperium of exploiting the policy to our own ends. You ve stated it several times - yet the reality is this: Dragonness got compensated and the procedure yielded results.

Thats totally unfair and frankly a piss-take. To winge about something which ultimately worked, to accuse a power of exploiting and being unfair when that same power actually gave you what you wanted - when clearly we could have just ignored you - is completely ridiculous.

Your right - respect begets respect. If thats how you want to portray The Imperium after ultimately everything worked out ok - then thats fine. But next time Black Dragon's have a problem with a Imperium member you ll find you ll be hitting your heads on a brick wall trying to make progress. Clearly sorting your issue you had out hasn't achieved anything as far as your concerned - so ignoring the next one will at the least save myself and seaborgium a lot of time and effort.

you still do not get it; the policy didn't work, not like it is written, not like it is supposed to... you don't get it & probably never will... too tired done with this... apologies for Paladius language, I can no more control him than you can control seaborgium... lol...