Disbanding a tribe by an enemy or spy or account sitter

[DeletedUser]

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...

In game mails.

It isn't that hard to get a member list from TWStats.

 

[Pepper871]

But, if you disband a tribe, that actual account itself is not harmed, now is it?

Yes it is, the rule says you cant cause harm to his work, that includes the work he put into a tribe. If they are foolish enough to give you your own rights then you can do as you please but you cant abuse a sit to do it, the rules are clear on it

 

[DeletedUser]

They should just make it impossible to disband a tribe or give out privs on sits shorter than say a week.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes. Obviously there has been a harm.

#1 - He is only a Baron. He was not able to kick the Duke of course.
#2 - He harmed the Tribe by intentionally kick or dismissing everybody.
#3 - Read rules for Account Sitting.
#4 - If you did not read the rules, see the headers when you play TW "Make sure you read the rules - there is no excuse for not knowing what they are. "

 

[DeletedUser]

They should just make it impossible to disband a tribe or give out privs on sits shorter than say a week.

I lolled for this :lol: This is just part of the game

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes it is, the rule says you cant cause harm to his work, that includes the work he put into a tribe. If they are foolish enough to give you your own rights then you can do as you please but you cant abuse a sit to do it, the rules are clear on it

Ahh, the rewording of the rules. That wasn't there before. lol

Further, does it define the tribe as part of the work of the account owner? No. Unfortunately, my interpretation is different. Of course, I think that part of the rule should be taken out anyway, but I tend to be of a "less government" mentality.

I still say this sets a dangerous precedent for the addition of more rules that will restrict people from dismissing other from tribes, or disbanding tribes at all. It opens the way for much, much stricter modding, which is not needed in this game.

They should just make it impossible to disband a tribe or give out privs on sits shorter than say a week.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yes. Obviously there has been a harm.

To the account itself? Or just the tribe?

#1 - He is only a Baron. He was not able to kick the Duke of course.

So the Duke set him as sitter. That doesn't alleviate the duke from any responsibility. The only way someone can sit an account is if the account owner sets him.

#2 - He harmed the Tribe by intentionally kick or dismissing everybody.

Quote me where in the rules it specifically says you are not allowed to hurt a tribe while sitting an account.

#3 - Read rules for Account Sitting.

I have. Many times. There is nothing specific that states the tribe is considered a work of the account, and that harming the tribe is just as punishable as harming the account itself.

#4 - If you did not read the rules, see the headers when you play TW "Make sure you read the rules - there is no excuse for not knowing what they are."

Did you happen to see this part?

"Players and sitters are equally responsible for the actions of any sat account. Make sure you can trust the person you choose as sitter or whose account you are sitting."

 

[DeletedUser]

Wow. I ignored this entire thread thinking it was just someone having a public cry. I gotta say i'm shocked at reading this. As long as I've played the game, I've always seen disbanding of tribes and erasing of forums to be low blows, but fair game.

I personally don't feel that this is the type of situation that calls for intervention by staff. Let the repercussions be sought in game by those wronged. If that is not to be the case, then it's time they go back for another round of rewording the rules.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes it is, the rule says you cant cause harm to his work, that includes the work he put into a tribe. If they are foolish enough to give you your own rights then you can do as you please but you cant abuse a sit to do it, the rules are clear on it

Pepper, we are not arguing it's a nice tactic, but please don't argue the rules that way :icon_rolleyes:

Following your thinking i could argue that because the rules say very clearly:

Players and sitters are equally responsible for the actions of any sat account. Make sure you can trust the person you choose as sitter or whose account you are sitting.

the duke of said tribe should also take all his villages taken away :lol:

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes it is, the rule says you cant cause harm to his work, that includes the work he put into a tribe. If they are foolish enough to give you your own rights then you can do as you please but you cant abuse a sit to do it, the rules are clear on it

Wait, what exactly is the difference between promoting someone to duke in a tribe, and the duke setting that same player as their account sitter?

Both accomplish the same thing. Give power to a player to dismiss people, clear forums, and disband the tribe.

Pepper, we are not arguing it's a nice tactic, but please don't argue the rules that way :icon_rolleyes:

Following your thinking i could argue that because the rules say very clearly:

Players and sitters are equally responsible for the actions of any sat account. Make sure you can trust the person you choose as sitter or whose account you are sitting.

the duke of said tribe should also take all his villages taken away :lol:

I'm all for it. If you are going to punish one of them, punish them both.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well apparently mango either suddenly restarted of his own will and no one else have cared to take his villages yet, Or he was punished... So I was right:xmas cool:

 

[DeletedUser]

My Take:

1. A duke or Baron has to have complete trust in a member of his tribe when he goes away! Otherwise what do u expect?

2. A duke is a leader and it is his leadership that makes the tribe.

3. Any good tribe can be disband and rebuilt in 12 hours! If not it was never a tribe in the first place!

 

[blue...heart]

My Take:

1. A duke or Baron has to have complete trust in a member of his tribe when he goes away! Otherwise what do u expect?

2. A duke is a leader and it is his leadership that makes the tribe.

3. Any good tribe can be disband and rebuilt in 12 hours! If not it was never a tribe in the first place!

Any good tribe would never even get disbanded. If a tribe was disbanded it means their leadership stinks and with a leadership like that how do u expect a tribe to do any good :/ ?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well apparently mango either suddenly restarted of his own will and no one else have cared to take his villages yet, Or he was punished... So I was right:xmas cool:

Either he was punished for something else, he deleted, or he needs to send in an appeal. This post is concerning the tactic, and it is straight from the current CM, Morthy:

We won't take any action against sitters that disband the tribe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Either he was punished for something else, he deleted, or he needs to send in an appeal. This post is concerning the tactic, and it is straight from the current CM, Morthy:

Nooo this thread started out with a single guy asking if it was legal :icon_biggrin: And well, he didn't disband the tribe, he kicked every member of it :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

Nooo this thread started out with a single guy asking if it was legal :icon_biggrin: And well, he didn't disband the tribe, he kicked every member of it :icon_rolleyes:

Which would still be considered legal. :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

Which would still be considered legal. :icon_rolleyes:

Well I guess they made a mistake then :icon_wink: Anyways I don't see the big diff of making yourself duke of a tribe with a sit and disbanding the tribe... The first one I know people have been punished for :icon_biggrin:

 

[DeletedUser]

If he was actually punished for that, if punished at all. Remember, that was just the assumption of what he was punished for.

 

[DeletedUser]

There is nothing morally wrong with disbanding an enemy tribe.

I disagree with this statement. Of course, I'm sure nothing I would say would convince you otherwise. However, I do believe that the fact that you see nothing wrong with it at all shows just exactly the type of person you are.

 

[DeletedUser]

There is nothing morally wrong with disbanding an enemy tribe.

I also disagree with this statement. Disbanding a tribe you are in is fair game (Omen rank 1 W39...OH WAIT!), but if you have to disband an enemy tribe then you can't take them out. Which shows you are morally inept as you have to fight with pathetic underhand tricks over good oldfashioned nukes and nobles.

 

[DeletedUser]

I also disagree with this statement. Disbanding a tribe you are in is fair game (Omen rank 1 W39...OH WAIT!), but if you have to disband an enemy tribe then you can't take them out. Which shows you are morally inept as you have to fight with pathetic underhand tricks over good oldfashioned nukes and nobles.

I'm not sure I agree with this Googly. Disbanding your own tribe, is worse (unless you joined with the intention of disbanding it), that person would be worse than the person that disbands his enemies tribe in my opinion.


Disbanding your enemy is fair enough if you ask me. It's efficient. The tribe usually always reforms into a mess. The person who gave you the means to do it/you manipulated, is in the wrong.