blue...heart
Guest
So for dissmising your tribe Suport crew take your villages away now ? Mangos villages all turned barbarian.. thats fu*ked up really...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
DeletedUser
Guest
Really?
TW is going down the drain. What little fun there was is being sucked out, for the benefit of whinging morons.
Fair enough, it's a dirty low-blow tactic, but it's all part of the game. Teaches people not to be so damn stupid.
TW is going down the drain. What little fun there was is being sucked out, for the benefit of whinging morons.
Fair enough, it's a dirty low-blow tactic, but it's all part of the game. Teaches people not to be so damn stupid.
II x Ryann x II
Guest
If so I have no sympathy for them.Thats just plain stupid an is the eqiulent to asking someone you met on a street to take your son home just in TW.Its a cheap shot but a legal shot IMO.Probably the same way he got it.
DeletedUser
Guest
So for dissmising your tribe Suport crew take your villages away now ? Mangos villages all turned barbarian.. thats fu*ked up really...
Oh wow, serious? This happens lots of time before. So why only now? :icon_confused:
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
wow, nice job tribalwars. The mods don't even know the rules themself. It doesn't say anywhere your not allowed to disband other tribes, and then you just turn a guy into barb, course you think it sucks.
Really, if you don't even know the ingame rules, you shouldn't have the job as mod. Why don't you just turn all of us into barbs instead? Tell me who havent' disbanded a tribe before?
Really, if you don't even know the ingame rules, you shouldn't have the job as mod. Why don't you just turn all of us into barbs instead? Tell me who havent' disbanded a tribe before?
DeletedUser
Guest
Wicker, please take it to the specific forum :icon_rolleyes:
However, it is considered illegal since like 2 months. The only thing is, the punishment is pretty harsh for something considered legal not long ago.
However, it is considered illegal since like 2 months. The only thing is, the punishment is pretty harsh for something considered legal not long ago.
DeletedUser
Guest
You get deleted for that!??! What next, your tribe disbanded if it has spies in other tribes?
II x Ryann x II
Guest
Hint Hint eh?You get deleted for that!??! What next, your tribe disbanded if it has spies in other tribes?
DeletedUser
Guest
BEcause it is not even a noble thing to do -- at all. Way back during the old wars, you should be a gentleman to do sh*ts. Spies has been there yes, pulling tribemates, but it cannot happen that if you are appointed as a baron (looking at the old times I am saying), you can just kick of people of a tribe right??? It just happen here because its a computer game which is a one click away. However, this game is based on an old setting (the typical, swords, axes, stuffs....), you should be noble enough. Be brave and compete with enemies blah blah
DeletedUser
Guest
Really? I missed any conversation about that being changed. I think this is a bad move by the staff.However, it is considered illegal since like 2 months. The only thing is, the punishment is pretty harsh for something considered legal not long ago.
lol, comparing this game to reality is a fail.BEcause it is not even a noble thing to do -- at all. Way back during the old wars, you should be a gentleman to do sh*ts. Spies has been there yes, pulling tribemates, but it cannot happen that if you are appointed as a baron (looking at the old times I am saying), you can just kick of people of a tribe right??? It just happen here because its a computer game which is a one click away. However, this game is based on an old setting (the typical, swords, axes, stuffs....), you should be noble enough. Be brave and compete with enemies blah blah
In the old days, you could pool your armies into one large army and attack a village, but the attack wouldn't take place in a millisecond and then be over, if could last anywhere from a day or two to months.
So, seeing as that TW is incorrect in that regard, shouldn't those settings be changed? :icon_rolleyes:
DeletedUser
Guest
when you accept the request for sitting does that not mean that you accept responsibility for that account during the time you are logged in? a sitter disbanding the tribe would result in the damage of the account since there would be no way a duke can rebuild the tribe, send out invites and post a support request in time. that would be the sole purpose of disbanding a tribe, so that the duke who started the tribe would be easy to noble. Granted, if the duke was careless and sent out sitting requests to anyone within or out of his tribe then the the blame is 50/50 but if his 2nd duke or one of his barons then blame lies 100% with the sitter.
DeletedUser
Guest
Really? I missed any conversation about that being changed. I think this is a bad move by the staff.
Yes, that's my main concern. It was not announced anywhere, mods were simply told to interpret the rules differently around that time.
The punishment is pretty harsh considering the lack of an announcement and the fact it was legal 2 months, ago.
DeletedUser
Guest
If your leader was stupid enough to set a random guy as his account sitter, you all deserve it.
One less noob tribe in the world.
Agreed:icon_cool:
DeletedUser
Guest
The punishment is pretty harsh considering the lack of an announcement and the fact it was legal 2 months, ago.
If that is a fact, I don't even think they announced that to all their in game supporters... I've sent a ticket before today, asking if it allowed to disband other tribes, and here is my answer:
Hello BluE WicKeD HeaRT,
Tribe founders have the sole responsibility of making sure whomever they make is a duke or baron - is trustworthy and responsible enough, to handle the rights and powers of being a duke or baron.
DeletedUser
Guest
when you accept the request for sitting does that not mean that you accept responsibility for that account during the time you are logged in? a sitter disbanding the tribe would result in the damage of the account since there would be no way a duke can rebuild the tribe, send out invites and post a support request in time. that would be the sole purpose of disbanding a tribe, so that the duke who started the tribe would be easy to noble. Granted, if the duke was careless and sent out sitting requests to anyone within or out of his tribe then the the blame is 50/50 but if his 2nd duke or one of his barons then blame lies 100% with the sitter.
First off, if it was his second duke, or one of the barons, they could disband the tribe or dismiss everyone and clear the forums anyway, so sitting isn't that much different.
Second off, disbanding of a tribe is not done solely to noble the duke of a tribe. It is done to create confusion. Fact of the matter is, though, if the tribe is capable, it isn't going to affect them greatly. A lot of tribes use outside communications, like skype chat rooms, to facilitate quicker communications. Support can be requested through such a chat room, and even through in-game mail, if the situation id desperate enough. Using that as an excuse to punish people who do this is asinine.
Third, the fact that they punish people for this now sets a horrible precedent. Tell, why is it any different for someone to use account sitting rights as opposed to already have the rights to do such things? Are those people who get pissed at their tribe, or their leader, and disband tribes, or dismiss players, now going to get banned because the leaders don't agree with each other? Where do you draw the line? This is exactly why such a rule is detrimental to the game. It opens a whole other avenue of actions to punishment that, in all reality, should not be punishable.
darkaniken2
Guest
Exactly. What about a duke who disbands the tribe to join a different one? What about at the end of a war, a duke leaves and takes only a few good players and leaves the crap ones? Can they be outright deleted? If this is going to be the new way TW rolls, then the game has lost most of its meaning.First off, if it was his second duke, or one of the barons, they could disband the tribe or dismiss everyone and clear the forums anyway, so sitting isn't that much different.
Second off, disbanding of a tribe is not done solely to noble the duke of a tribe. It is done to create confusion. Fact of the matter is, though, if the tribe is capable, it isn't going to affect them greatly. A lot of tribes use outside communications, like skype chat rooms, to facilitate quicker communications. Support can be requested through such a chat room, and even through in-game mail, if the situation id desperate enough. Using that as an excuse to punish people who do this is asinine.
Third, the fact that they punish people for this now sets a horrible precedent. Tell, why is it any different for someone to use account sitting rights as opposed to already have the rights to do such things? Are those people who get pissed at their tribe, or their leader, and disband tribes, or dismiss players, now going to get banned because the leaders don't agree with each other? Where do you draw the line? This is exactly why such a rule is detrimental to the game. It opens a whole other avenue of actions to punishment that, in all reality, should not be punishable.
TW is supposed to be a fun game, but it seems there are now more ways to get banned than there are ways to play fair.
DeletedUser
Guest
duke could always appoint duke to another tribe member then leave. sure they can always use skpe but no BB codes and to send in game mail to your 'former' members? but in the cases I have seen, the noble trains are sent simultaneously with tribe disbandment and while the sitter is on. the confusion is the rest of the tribe not knowing where to send support and they are even unaware there is an attack taking place...
DeletedUser
Guest
The disbanding of a tribe by an enemy was actually done not to long ago in w36. The only difference was that the player was made actually made duke not sitting the duke's account. He wasn't punished for this.
I do wonder why it was his sitter and not the player that disbanded the tribe? I mean if the said player wanted to disband the tribe; I see no problem with that, but it was his sitter, which seems to suggest that it was not the owner's intention in disbanding the tribe. (Pure speculation, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Also, was he actually banned for this offense? Do you have any kind of confirmation that he is being punished? He could have simply deleted (again speculation) or was being punished for something else.
I do wonder why it was his sitter and not the player that disbanded the tribe? I mean if the said player wanted to disband the tribe; I see no problem with that, but it was his sitter, which seems to suggest that it was not the owner's intention in disbanding the tribe. (Pure speculation, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Also, was he actually banned for this offense? Do you have any kind of confirmation that he is being punished? He could have simply deleted (again speculation) or was being punished for something else.
Pepper871
Guest
If he disbanded the tribe as a sitter that is and always has been a rules violation. You cannot deliberately cause harm to a sat account, such as sending away troops so it can be nobled, or in this case disbanding a tribe. It is and always has been within the rules to disband a tribe from your own account.
So in short, they can easily rule that while sitting you deliberately caused harm to the account against the account holders wishes. The account holder wont get any compensation because he bears some responsibility in who he sets as a sitter, but the sitter can be punished.
I have seen this happen long ago in w10 so its not new, and it will always depend on how a mod interprets the situation.
So in short, they can easily rule that while sitting you deliberately caused harm to the account against the account holders wishes. The account holder wont get any compensation because he bears some responsibility in who he sets as a sitter, but the sitter can be punished.
I have seen this happen long ago in w10 so its not new, and it will always depend on how a mod interprets the situation.
§3) Account sitting
A sat account must be played for their own benefit. It is not allowed to abuse account sitting. Account sitters that intentionally destroy or seriously damage an account they are sitting will be punished.
We will punish the account sitter if we see that it was the clear intention to ruin the account owners work against his instructions, we will not be able to repair the damage done to the account, so please make sure you always choose a responsible account sitter.
Last edited:
DeletedUser
Guest
If he disbanded the tribe as a sitter that is and always has been a rules violation. You cannot deliberately cause harm to a sat account, such as sending away troops so it can be nobled, or in this case disbanding a tribe. It is and always has been within the rules to disband a tribe from your own account.
So in short, they can easily rule that while sitting you deliberately caused harm to the account against the account holders wishes. The account holder wont get any compensation because he bears some responsibility in who he sets as a sitter, but the sitter can be punished.
I have seen this happen long ago in w10 so its not new, and it will always depend on how a mod interprets the situation.
But, if you disband a tribe, that actual account itself is not harmed, now is it?
Share:
