SYNRG... again?

[DeletedUser]

Answer mine first, he accused me of spying, no account sitting is in that word.

 

[DeletedUser45372]

to clear a few things up

firstly, i did nothing but support both speenzer and noely when they first came to SYNRG. One was a late start/restart claiming to be a super player (noely) and the other a desperate refugee on the run from R.L. who were decimating his tribe. God knows which one because R.L. declared on and destroyed both Y.W.P and E2K and speenzer had been in both (and claims both were 2 of his 24 good decisions). Speenzer casued forum trouble from the start and people were asking for his blood within SYNRG from within a few days. Then i received mail from soemone that he was acting as a spy. I checked his profile and he was PA's with one of WICKED's leaders. Then he was demanding in our forums that we dont attack this PA of his. wtf? After 2 days in the tribe? That was enough for me. So i dismissed him and we organised an op on him that went off pretty quickly and without much resistance (dare i say point whore). Noely just cant get along with anyone. I have intel from within his own tribe that they want to dismiss him and rim him. very funny. now i have him located on the map i wonder who is going to do it first us or ExTerr

shadow i was disappointed to see you are on the other side of the world.
chandler - we are coming now

I am a late start, to date, I have NEVER been rimmed in this game...
about me not getting along with anyone, thats funny you say that, and I've welcomed my tribe mates to attack me if they wish... they realize that I'm not this evil person that is out to destroy tribes from within with well written banter.

They see what I can offer as a player (not in points or number of villages) Since this world isnt a serious world for me, it gets the back burner to world 13 and eventually world45 when it opens. (depending on settings)

Maybe you should hire better intel... I think they are leading you in the wrong direction... either that, or you don't know how to comprehend simple typed english.

Anyways... I will be waiting with nachos and dip for any visitors to my village... drawbridge will be down so you can come on in and take a look around... can't guarantee that your troops will leave though, they may like my place a little too much and decide to stay... in return, only sending you a red dot.

 

[DeletedUser]

There was no concrete proof Speenzer. You were suspected of spying. This has all been gone through by others already and no proof has been posted.
Maybe you were innocent but in a war situation,a tribe needs everyone involved and you werent prepared to get involved in that war due to personal allies in Wicked. That was your choice and you were fully entitled to that choice.
Given that,you were in a tribe that was at war and it was also your choice to stay but if you would not help your tribe,how could you expect help in return should you have needed it.

So did you or did you not use someone else's troops and nobles during an account sit to clear a village so that you could noble it?

 

[DeletedUser45372]

Why is there such an issue with clearing a village with someone elses troops?

I want to hear a solid answer... not just "because they arent yours"

 

[DeletedUser]

Why is there such an issue with clearing a village with someone elses troops?

I want to hear a solid answer... not just "because they arent yours"

It's against the rules. Read chapters 3 and 4 again.
As a key-quote:

It is not allowed to use an account in any way that profits another account on the same connection.

 

[DeletedUser45372]

on the same connection.... this is an account sit, not a push account.

You can attack the same player/village as long there is the wait time inbetween (from when you give up the sit and when you attack)

 

[DeletedUser]

§3) Account sitting

While a player is account sitting for another player, no interactions (attack/supply/support/coordinated attacks or support) are allowed between any accounts played on the account sitter's internet connection (including friends, family and colleagues on the same connection). That includes all accounts, that are being account sat by players on that connection.
All interactions are forbidden until 24 hours AFTER the account sitting mode has been canceled or transfered.
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.

 

[DeletedUser45372]

right, thank you for repeating what I just said.

 

[DeletedUser]

He abused the account for his own gain. He killed off someone else's troops to limit his own losses. He abused the trust that the account sitter had put in him. I can assure you it is against the rules whether you see it or not.
The player who he was sitting lost troops in the attack and lost troops when the attacked player retaliated with attacks of his own.

The punishment, you get banned for a period of time and then you lose a portion of your villages.

You are more than welcome to test those rules for yourself and let us know how you get on

 

[DeletedUser45372]

thats assuming its an active/live player, and not one that went grey or one that went inactive.

Morales and rules are 2 different things... it may not be the RIGHT thing to do, but its not against the rules.

If it were, that would mean that I couldnt clear villages for other people... since im using my troops to limit their losses.

 

[DeletedUser]

He abused the account for his own gain. He killed off someone else's troops to limit his own losses. He abused the trust that the account sitter had put in him. I can assure you it is against the rules whether you see it or not.
The player who he was sitting lost troops in the attack and lost troops when the attacked player retaliated with attacks of his own.

The punishment, you get banned for a period of time and then you lose a portion of your villages.

You are more than welcome to test those rules for yourself and let us know how you get on

they will not ban you for sending attacks while sitting an account. if you send an attack with an account you are sitting, the only limitation is that you cannot attack that same player from your own account within 24 hours. unless you somehow manage to get passed the limitations built into the server, your not gonna be able to do it anyways (if you try, you will get a nice little red message saying you have to wait 24 hours before launching your attack). There are built in features in the game that prevent violation of certain rules, including this one.

this is also why it says to make sure you fully trust the person who is sitting your account.

 

[DeletedUser]

Noely is Correct.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know players that were banned for this very violation so if its not possible to do due to ingame features protecting against this,then those players would not have been banned as the game would not have allowed them to do it hence they would not have broken any rules.
You can use your own troops however you like to clear for someone else as thats your choice but you cannot abuse an account sit to benefit yourself.

If Speenzer used his own troops, he would have had to rebuild them using his resources and his time.
He used someone else's troops and nobles which that player then had to rebuild whatever was lost using his own time and resources.The sat player also had to rebuild any troops lost when the attacked player retaliated.
That is abusing the account sit and damaging that account intentionally.

If the game systems were so infalliable as to halt any attempts at cheating, then there would be no real need for the support ticket system as the system would halt everything before it could be committed.

 

[DeletedUser45372]

I know players that were banned for this very violation so if its not possible to do due to ingame features protecting against this,then those players would not have been banned as the game would not have allowed them to do it hence they would not have broken any rules.
You can use your own troops however you like to clear for someone else as thats your choice but you cannot abuse an account sit to benefit yourself.

If Speenzer used his own troops, he would have had to rebuild them using his resources and his time.
He used someone else's troops and nobles which that player then had to rebuild whatever was lost using his own time and resources.The sat player also had to rebuild any troops lost when the attacked player retaliated.
That is abusing the account sit and damaging that account intentionally.

If the game systems were so infalliable as to halt any attempts at cheating, then there would be no real need for the support ticket system as the system would halt everything before it could be committed.

You need to prove that the player sitting the account intentionally tried to DAMAGE the account by sending off attacks/clears.

The players you know were probably doing such things, like hurting the sat account.

attacking the same player, with the 24 hours after the sit has ENDED, is legal, according to the rules... infact, let me post them ALL for you right here.

§3) Account sitting
Account sitting is a temporary way to watch someones account while that person cannot log into his own account. While a player is account sitting for another player, no interactions (attack/supply/support/coordinated attacks or support) are allowed between any accounts played on the account sitter's internet connection (including friends, family and colleagues on the same connection). That includes all accounts, that are being account sat by players on that connection.
All interactions are forbidden until 24 hours AFTER the account sitting mode has been canceled or transfered.
It is not allowed to sit an account and use it just to push other accounts. Accounts that are clearly used as push accounts in this way will be banned.
Everything stated in §2 has to be followed.
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.
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.
Examples:
It is allowed for you to attack and conquer villages with the account you are account sitting.
It is allowed for you to attack different players from the same tribe with your own account and the account you are account sitting for (i.e. separate attacks on separate players).
It is never allowed to gift resources off any account you are sitting, even if the villages are being gifted.
It is forbidden to write a player to find out if he is in the account for an attack planned from another account on your connection.
It is not allowed to use an account in any way that profits another account on the same connection.
An account sitter may not attack or support the same player from his own account and from the account he is sitting as long as sitting is active. This is illegal even if there is more than 24 hours between the attacks. The same player may only be attacked when sitting has been ended for at least 24 hours.
It is forbidden to support or attack another player on the same internet connection as the account sitter or sat account.
It is not allowed to attack a player that is sat by anyone on your internet connection.
It is strictly forbidden to attack or support the same player from your own account and the account you are sitting.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok the troops were sent out for exercise and he just forgot to recall them.
Speenzer its the quietest i have ever seen you on the forums, whats your take on it?