FIRE & The Imperium Breach Procedure

See Ian, that's why I don't like your style. These guys would have been dirt for a long time now if I was still playing, bitching and moaning about silly little things even after they get their crumbs back... well, if I was actively playing that is. I'm hoping for a comeback! And you know there are plenty others who could say the same thing, being in your shoes.

I see what BD's doing. And I'm sure you see it quite clearly yourself, though I don't expect anyone to post it here, obviously. And you know why, too.

Also, remember kids! It's one thing to show sarcasm. That's a sign of wit, or at least the desire to be witty. It's a whole different thing to resort to puerile insults. That's a sign of idiocy, or at least the desire to be idiotic. Especially if the person doing it carries the name of a monk/bishop (Palladius is the name of the monk). 10 lashes and 5 "Hail Mary"'s for you, mister!

Sandwalker wrote:See Ian, that's why I don't like your style. These guys would have been dirt for a long time now if I was still playing, bitching and moaning about silly little things even after they get their crumbs back... well, if I was actively playing that is. I'm hoping for a comeback! And you know there are plenty others who could say the same thing, being in your shoes.

I see what BD's doing. And I'm sure you see it quite clearly yourself, though I don't expect anyone to post it here, obviously. And you know why, too.

Also, remember kids! It's one thing to show sarcasm. That's a sign of wit, or at least the desire to be witty. It's a whole different thing to resort to puerile insults. That's a sign of idiocy, or at least the desire to be idiotic. Especially if the person doing it carries the name of a monk/bishop (Palladius is the name of the monk). 10 lashes and 5 "Hail Mary"'s for you, mister!

I WAS done with this; until this post, I don't know what you think WE are attempting. but I assure the only thing I was trying, was to get was a bit more clarity added to the breach policy so as the next person to report a breach wouldn't have to put up with the same BS that I did when I reported an illegal hit. That is all, make accusations all you want, I don't care. you don't/won't see, & I am tired of trying to show you. I really don't think that you guys are blind, I think you suffer from "my account is so huge" syndrome, & that is all you can see...

& yes Paladius was/is out of line with some of his posts & all have a right to call him out on it,(I have scolded him severely), I have apologised for him & do so again...
nuff said...

to Ian & seaborgium,

I wish to apologize to you for the name-calling I did. It was out of line & inappropriate, & I am sorry for what I did.

Thank you for your time
Paladius, Leader of the black dragons

Paladius wrote:to Ian & seaborgium,

I wish to apologize to you for the name-calling I did. It was out of line & inappropriate, & I am sorry for what I did.

Thank you for your time
Paladius, Leader of the black dragons

No worries buddy. In regard to my posts i am sorry if they ve been intepreted the wrong way. So i ll clarify them once and for all:

The issue regarding Curomo resulted from a high-level of confusion - the way it was handled wasn't how it was intended to be handled...

I.e. Dragonness's contacting me at a time when i had massive amounts of stuff to do in real-life resulted in my ability (or even noticing the message) to deal with the problem being pretty limited. Then the contacting of SA47 and it not being made known to myself that SA47 was contacted (if you d have said you ve already contacted one person and got no response it would have prompted a quicker reply) - and finally your then contacting Seaborgium.

His reply about the 7-days thing was made at a time when he had no idea eithier myself or SA47 had already been contacted. He is right when he says once you made him aware of the previous attempts to contact T.I.E that he sorted the issue out very quickly - making it a priority.

Thats simply how it is - a failure to communicate the full details - eithier within T.I.E (i.e. me, SA47 & Seaborgium), within Black Dragons (i.e. its been stated before that people weren't sure who Dragonness contacted) & then the failure to communicate between T.I.E & Black Dragon's itself.

There's wasn't any malice or hostility in the way it was conducted - merely confusion. Confusion which was eventually cleared up....

for the record the payment was made in 46 hours from the last message that I got from you guys.

kingkongfan1 wrote:I think you suffer from "my account is so huge" syndrome

Aw shucks, the guy that loves furry pseudo-men saw right through me. I do suffer from that syndrome, what with my 2mil size account.

My account be gangsta'!

hmmm

I could sell my account down to 1m and I bet i would win. I don't have to keep the kuwal either lol

Or you could just give it all to me Sea xD

ian wrote:

Paladius wrote:to Ian & seaborgium,

I wish to apologize to you for the name-calling I did. It was out of line & inappropriate, & I am sorry for what I did.

Thank you for your time
Paladius, Leader of the black dragons

No worries buddy. In regard to my posts i am sorry if they ve been intepreted the wrong way. So i ll clarify them once and for all:

The issue regarding Curomo resulted from a high-level of confusion - the way it was handled wasn't how it was intended to be handled...

I.e. Dragonness's contacting me at a time when i had massive amounts of stuff to do in real-life resulted in my ability (or even noticing the message) to deal with the problem being pretty limited. Then the contacting of SA47 and it not being made known to myself that SA47 was contacted (if you d have said you ve already contacted one person and got no response it would have prompted a quicker reply) - and finally your then contacting Seaborgium.

His reply about the 7-days thing was made at a time when he had no idea eithier myself or SA47 had already been contacted. He is right when he says once you made him aware of the previous attempts to contact T.I.E that he sorted the issue out very quickly - making it a priority.

Thats simply how it is - a failure to communicate the full details - eithier within T.I.E (i.e. me, SA47 & Seaborgium), within Black Dragons (i.e. its been stated before that people weren't sure who Dragonness contacted) & then the failure to communicate between T.I.E & Black Dragon's itself.

There's wasn't any malice or hostility in the way it was conducted - merely confusion. Confusion which was eventually cleared up....

... YES!!!, you do see... ... you are starting to get it... ... this post makes all of yesterday worth it... ... & I apologize for my alliance mate, Dragoness who is a touch hard-headed & headstrong, & determined to handle things on her own; in her way, for her part in the confusion... I also apologize for my inability to explain what I am trying to say any better than I do. I still honestly feel that the breach policy needs more work, but that can wait for another day...

@ sandwalker- Dune I never said anything about or to you, I was refering to Ian & seaborgium with that statement. sorry you never crossed my mind in the whole of this conversation, didn't hurt your feelings I hope...

Well maybe just a little. My ID is 144 for donations towards healing my bruised ego.

If I'm not mistaken, Dragoness is a BD HC member right? Its not stated but it definitely should be. I suggest you make a topic explaining who is who on the forum to avoid all of this confusion. Yes, it did take a long time, but fussing over the spilt milk now is pointless lol. I mean, did she not get her compensation and then some? I think the policy works wonders in keeping the peace. If you would've looked at it the first time, you would see that it was not designed for the BDs in the first place. It started out as a suggestion from TIE and then became a universal policy between the 3 major alliances for a certain reason. It has worked very well so far imo, and is doing exactly what it was meant to do If the BDs do not like it, then by all means don't use it. That's all I have to say on this matter.

I will just leave it to SA to deal with you.

First let me say I did fail in my role at the time the hit was reported to me. I wasn't even in the state, but I dropped the ball on the issue completely.


Secondly, I would ask you to come to TIE forums and we can talk out some of the issues you have with the farming policy. These things require changes rather often, and no one is perfect. Some points you have raised with me I agreed with, and some I didn't and did my best to explain why.

Now lets put the matter behind us and move forward.

I know tempers had flared up a little over this policy but I'm glad to see things are getting sorted out. Seems like many lessons have been learned across the board.

The biggest lesson being that Ian and SA47 should be on AW 24/7 to prevent this from happening again! (j/k)

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:If I'm not mistaken, Dragoness is a BD HC member right? Its not stated but it definitely should be. I suggest you make a topic explaining who is who on the forum to avoid all of this confusion. Yes, it did take a long time, but fussing over the spilt milk now is pointless lol. I mean, did she not get her compensation and then some? I think the policy works wonders in keeping the peace. If you would've looked at it the first time, you would see that it was not designed for the BDs in the first place. It started out as a suggestion from TIE and then became a universal policy between the 3 major alliances for a certain reason. It has worked very well so far imo, and is doing exactly what it was meant to do If the BDs do not like it, then by all means don't use it. That's all I have to say on this matter.

As soon as every other alliance especially TIE, FIRE, and WR post who their HC members are i will post who the Black Dragons HC members are.

Tie HC is

Leader: Ian
2IC: SA47
Monglar: Vesper

I am an adviser, that has the ability to make decisions about diplomatic items.

FIRE HC are

Leader:
Lord Ishurue
2IC:
Castraverte
3IC:
Alex
Alliance Advisors:
Gortok
Kingofshinobis
Vaga
Lurant Maximus

New Federation

Leader:
Jiro
2IC:
Charlychin

BD HC

Paladius
Quest
Kingkongfan1
Dragoness

Do they have positions?

It would make it much easier to know who to contact.

Leader:Paladius
2IC:KingKongfan1

Quest
Dragoness

Hey guys.

The Imperium's new UU rate is 195,000 kuwal per 1 UU.

That means anyone farming our ranks now has to factor this into the required profit margins.

Failure to meet the required profit margins will NOT be tolerated.

Any questions make them known.

Thanks

I ve recieved this message from kenzu:

Hello ian, you have repeatedly breached farming policy again. I therefore ask you to repay the damages you have caused.

Example:
You attacked Doxakk:
3,403,144,294 Kuwal stolen
5,195 losses => 3.3 billion losses
you made less than 200 million profit

Please be so kind, hold on to your promise and repay the damages not only to Doxakk, but also to all the other people, where you breached the farming policy since 23rd May 2010.

We also have to talk about other issues.

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

This is the response i got back when i pointed out that I ve not once recieved a previous warning since the adoption of the new World Republic policy - and that therefore the above counts as a first warning:

not at all, you breached the treaty countless times:

Jookaremo
[25 May] 05:13 ian 3,438,908,087 Kuwal Stolen 3545 466 3,309,022,054 2,825,644,800 - Damage to me: 2,261,710,000 kuwal worth (638,000 kuwal per trained super). Profit: 1,177,198,087 - legal under WR/FIRE farming policy

countless offenses on kismet:
Time Attacker Result Enemy Losses Your Losses Enemy Damage Your Damage
[28 May] 17:01 ian 3,499,601,519 Kuwal Stolen 3028 1529 4,406,884,990 2,524,847,392 Damage to me: 1,931,864,000kuwal worth (638,000 kuwal per trained super). Profit: 1,567,737,519 - legal under WR/FIRE farming policy

[27 May] 06:39 ian 5,276,706,417 Kuwal Stolen 4094 1134 5,155,223,950 5,401,466,572 Damage to me: 2,611,972,000kuwal worth (638,000 kuwal per trained super). Profit: 2,664,734,417 - legal under WR/FIRE farming policy

[25 May] 05:06 ian 5,447,781,076 Kuwal Stolen 4308 1081 4,573,800,000 5,303,567,496 Damage to me: 2,748,504,000kuwal worth (638,000 kuwal per trained super). Profit: 2,699,277,076 - legal under WR/FIRE farming policy

[23 May] 09:11 ian 2,793,962,366 Kuwal Stolen 5091 874 3,112,087,740 5,534,942,856 Done before WR had the new policy

[22 May] 05:40 ian 4,729,649,925 Kuwal Stolen 4683 952 3,652,453,728 5,490,797,491 Done before WR had the new policy

[20 May] 05:05 ian 4,603,518,419 Kuwal Stolen 4797 939 3,579,006,816 5,557,431,456 Done before WR had the new policy

connor mac loud
[28 May] 10:01 ian 2,254,593,594 Kuwal Stolen 2300 1075 4,446,635,470 1,469,439,282 Damage to me: 1,467,400,000 kuwal worth (638,000 kuwal per trained super). Profit: 787,193,594 - legal under WR/FIRE farming policy

truestrike:
[22 May] 14:51 ian 2,625,615,784 Kuwal Stolen 2754 602 4,942,153,269 2,427,428,256 Done before WR had the new policy

you got tons of breaches.
Repay all damages to me so that I can see that they have been properly paid. thank you.

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

The red highlighted bits are what i ve added in.

Now - since i don't want any confusion about this - and since i think EVERYONE need to be aware of exactly where this is going to end up if this continues:

If World Republic continues to ignore the above procedure, The Imperium Empire will unilaterally withdraw from the breach procedure. We will follow the example set by Black Dragons (who also left in part due to a disagreement with Kenzu about the above) and start dealing with breaches of our policy how we see fit.

The above procedure states VERY specifically that the procedure is:

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.

2nd breach of alliance policy = Another warning is issued, as well as another message to the alliance leader of the player in question - and compensation demanded. Compensation includes the full amount of kuwal stolen , Weapon cost , retraining cost, since TIE & FIRE & WR uses a different UU rate the UUs the victim lost will be sent directly plus 1% ( the 1% covers the direct send fee of 1% of goods sent )

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.

If World Republic has never issued a official warning - then any warning they then issue IS the first warning. Compensation is only required on the 2nd & 3rd breaches.

Frankly i m not happy for basically 4 reasons:

1.) That Kenzu/ WR had tried enforcing a policy which didn't exist initially i.e. there being no publically stated policy available up untill late on May the 23rd. You can't follow something you don't know about...

2.) That Kenzu/ WR since adopting the policy on May the 23rd have attempted to demand compensation for hits done BEFORE May the 23rd - thats a bit like a country changing its law, and trying to then find people guilty for conduct carried out *before* the law change when it was actually legal - so in other words a complete joke and simply not acceptable.

3.) That Kenzu/ WR have been demanding compensation for many hits WELL above the required profit margins for their policy - meaning in other words you ve posted one policy/ set of rules - and are now attempting to enforce another.

4.) That Kenzu/ WR have simply ignored the breach-procedure they ve signed up to follow, and instead started making their own up - namely ignoring the whole *first warning* bit and jumping straight to second warnings... or they simply can't count (Hint: second comes after first - not before).

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

This is only messages i m aware of to myself. In other word's - if Kenzu's trying to pull the above stunt on me (i.e. TIE's leader and one of the signatories of this treaty) - then i really have to question just what sort of stunt or exploitative conduct is he doing with other's who are less likely to actually know the policy and therefore take him at his word - or who won't tell him where to go when he's wrong.

World Republic can eithier start following the treaties its signed up to - or the Imperium Empire will withdraw from it.

People should start considering that if agreements are undermined, then diplomacy itself is undermined and may even become pointless - and if diplomacy is undermined and becomes pointless.... than what other alternatives are there?

I don't want to hear of another case of World Republic not following the above procedure - thats now 2 (BD & Myself). If there's a third this procedure ends here. Its that simple.

I propose FIRE, WR & TIE agree to also contact each alliance-leader before conducting a massing under the 3rd-warning.

All alliances should agree to give serious consideration to accepting compensation for breaches on & after the 3rd breach instead of massing's, if:

1.) Compensation is offerred by the person who committed the 3rd breach
2.) If that person genuinely appears to be sorry for their breach
3.) If looking at the log's of the alliance its obvious that person has genuinely tried to follow the alliance's policy - and has simply accidentally made the breaches by mistake i.e. whether due to poor maths (miscalculating profit), due to underestimating losses or due to the strike fluctuating.

On the other hand - if the person blantantly hasn't attempted to follow the policy... then they should be massed - but the alliance-leader still should be contacted *before* a massing is done - and time given for the leader to respond back before the massing is carried out.

Views/ thoughts?

ian wrote:I propose FIRE, WR & TIE agree to also contact each alliance-leader before conducting a massing under the 3rd-warning.

All alliances should agree to give serious consideration to accepting compensation for breaches on & after the 3rd breach instead of massing's, if:

1.) Compensation is offerred by the person who committed the 3rd breach
2.) If that person genuinely appears to be sorry for their breach
3.) If looking at the log's of the alliance its obvious that person has genuinely tried to follow the alliance's policy - and has simply accidentally made the breaches by mistake i.e. whether due to poor maths (miscalculating profit), due to underestimating losses or due to the strike fluctuating.

On the other hand - if the person blantantly hasn't attempted to follow the policy... then they should be massed - but the alliance-leader still should be contacted *before* a massing is done - and time given for the leader to respond back before the massing is carried out.

Views/ thoughts?

I think this is a good idea. but also add something about the diplomat or player who handles breeches to be friendly when talking to the farmer . mainly because a big alliance like TIE, Mujengan, World Republic, and New Federation .

We are big, we can scare new players who might think they are in serious trouble . so we all should be friendly when we talk to the farmers who make breeches .

No1 should take this as a sign of weakness. FIRE/WR know TIE is strong, TIE knows FIRE/WR are strong .
The server knows we are strong . Their is no need to remind people with too Harsh of warnings .

Ishurue wrote:

ian wrote:I propose FIRE, WR & TIE agree to also contact each alliance-leader before conducting a massing under the 3rd-warning.

All alliances should agree to give serious consideration to accepting compensation for breaches on & after the 3rd breach instead of massing's, if:

1.) Compensation is offerred by the person who committed the 3rd breach
2.) If that person genuinely appears to be sorry for their breach
3.) If looking at the log's of the alliance its obvious that person has genuinely tried to follow the alliance's policy - and has simply accidentally made the breaches by mistake i.e. whether due to poor maths (miscalculating profit), due to underestimating losses or due to the strike fluctuating.

On the other hand - if the person blantantly hasn't attempted to follow the policy... then they should be massed - but the alliance-leader still should be contacted *before* a massing is done - and time given for the leader to respond back before the massing is carried out.

Views/ thoughts?

I think this is a good idea. but also add something about the diplomat or player who handles breeches to be friendly when talking to the farmer . mainly because a big alliance like TIE, Mujengan, World Republic, and New Federation .

We are big, we can scare new players who might think they are in serious trouble . so we all should be friendly when we talk to the farmers who make breeches .

No1 should take this as a sign of weakness. FIRE/WR know TIE is strong, TIE knows FIRE/WR are strong .
The server knows we are strong . Their is no need to remind people with too Harsh of warnings .

Sounds like a good idea.

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

Ian, I shall ignore your previous post. Some of the views represented by you as my views are obviously a misrepresentation of what I have said. Please read more carefully what I write next time, and take into account not only what I said in 2 messages, but what I said before and also what you have done before

Besides, do you want to say that this was the first time you make a hit with such a small profit?
Let me remind you:

Here is TIE 5 tier farming 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.

Here are a couple attacks in which you broke your own farming policy, if it were to be applied on you:

against Truestrike:

[22 May] 14:51 ian 2,625,615,784 Kuwal Stolen 2754 602 4,942,153,269 2,427,428,256
Your losses: 1.743.282.000 +30 million (for turns)
Victims defense: 2,427,428,256
You made a profit of: 832 million
Your policy states you need a profit of: 1.2 billion
The damage you caused: 3.006.000.000

[14 May] 05:50 ian 1,674,340,774 Kuwal Stolen 1853 419 2,363,900,962 2,394,825,048
Your losses: 1.172.000.000 +30 million
Victims defense: over 2,394,825,048
You made a profit of: 471 million
Your policy states you need a profit of: 1.2 billion
The damage you caused: 1.939.567.000

Against Bengalari:
[14 May] 05:47 ian 1,508,784,480 Kuwal Stolen 1622 294 2,224,189,667 1,617,693,000
Your losses: 1622*(175.000+150.000+308.000)+30.000.000=1.056.726.000 loses
Victims defense: 1.617.000.000
You made a profit of: 452 million
Your policy states you need a profit of: 600 million
The damage you caused: 1.694.886.480

Against Black Antelope
[19 May] 11:34 ian 1,717,115,863 Kuwal Stolen 1943 493 2,168,191,386 2,235,367,862
Your losses: 1.229.000.000 +30 million
Victims defense: 2,235,367,862
You made a profit of: 458.000.000
Your policy states you need a profit of: 1.2 billion
The damage you caused: 2.029.069.000

against Mirage
[16 May] 18:24 ian 2,028,299,416 Kuwal Stolen 2229 432 2,065,653,651 2,918,479,200
Your losses: 1.410.957.000 +30 million
Victims defense: 2,918,479,200
You made a profit of: 587.000.000
Your policy states you need a profit of: 1.2 billion
The damage you caused: 2.301.755.416

Against me, Keinutnai:
[14 May] 14:15 ian 3,157,105,859 Kuwal Stolen 3278 510 1,880,859,865 5,569,796,358
Your losses: 2.074.980.000 +30 million
Victims defense: 5,569,796,358
You made a profit of: 1.052.000.000
Your policy states you need a profit of: 1.2 billion
The damage you caused: 3.479.935.859

against Jookaremo
[18 May] 05:30 ian 1,825,018,717 Kuwal Stolen 2503 300 1,642,410,000 2,571,129,000
Your losses: 1.584.399.000 +30 million
Victims defense: 2,571,129,000
You made a profit of: 241.000.000
Your policy states you need a profit of: 1.2 billion
The damage you caused: 2.014.000.000

against Kompur
[22 May] 14:53 ian 1,813,339,409 Kuwal Stolen 2716 520 3,584,179,991 1,761,302,083
Your losses: 1.719.000.000
Victims defense: 1,761,302,083
You made a profit of: 94.000.000
Your policy states you need a profit of: 600 million
The damage you caused: 2.142.000.000

UU = 175.000 kuwal
10 AT = 30.000.000 kuwal
(Even if you ignore the AT cost, you breach TIE farming policy in each of these attacks)

Your profit: 4.187.000.000 kuwal
Recent damage you caused while braking farming policies: 18.604.000.000 kuwal

Is that enough of a reminder?

PS: Let me also remind you of the recent over 40 sabotage attacks against 4 WR members, especially on kismet. You benefit a lot from these sabotages. Now what should I think about this whole issue?