Spamming Clan Buildings - New Rule

[LostKnight]

Game mechanics are not the same as game rules. Never have been and never will be. Look at game rules 0-12 and find which ones are addressed by game mechanics. For which ones is it even possible? You can't accept some rules and reject other rules based on the same argument.

↑↑ Loves that post!

[ryaca_]

SellSword the voice of reason spoke words that ring true.

Players may not agree with my ways but I sure as hell make things interesting.

No matter how my story plays out, players, the developer, and the GM team are coming together to work for the common good and exchange helpful ideas.

It may be perhaps that ryaca was exactly what FT needed.

[LostKnight]

Who knows, maybe at some point in the future ...

Hey, remember ryaca_? He was the GM that had the guts to do what was need to be done.

... only time will tell.

[NightBaby]

Lol so everyone thinks building spam is allowed now. This is RIDICULOUS. It's in the rules, it's petty, and I get it's a waste of energy to try and tell these players otherwise. But its getting out of hand.

[Lestat]

Yes many are abusing spam right now, even though comp only stated he didn't approve of seths definition of spam, and there has been a rule for almost 2 years that i know of. The funniest part, the ones usually crying spam are abusing it the most. All you can do at this time is report it and hope at a later day they get punished. This just shows the true character of these players

[NightBaby]

Yes many are abusing spam right now, even though comp only stated he didn't approve of seths definition of spam, and there has been a rule for almost 2 years that i know of. The funniest part, the ones usually crying spam are abusing it the most. All you can do at this time is report it and hope at a later day they get punished. This just shows the true character of these players

Couldn't have said it any better

[ryaca_]

I have received numerous reports from players in the last few days about players abusing the spam building rule again. There have been a lot.

I have not replied to any of them nor have I went to investigate. I wanted to though.

compbatant stated that rule didn't make sense to him and that he was going to change some game mechanics to solve this problem. That is the last that I heard from him.

So I am confused as to what I should do now.

Until compbatant gives us an update on the spam building rule, I feel like my hands are tied. I certainly do not want to try to enforce the rule only to have compbatant step in and reverse that decision.

[Mr_Maks]

I don’t know about the contentious points of the rules, but spamming with unfinished buildings is why they introduced the spam rule.Will it be punished after update with clans?

[Lestat]

First , yes i hope that those using spam will be punished.
Secondly, heres something the clans need to think about. We know there is no "simple" way to define spam. To just say any unfinished building is spam isnt good enough.
Third, as people are still reporting spam, this shows that the players themselves recognize spam.

Comp can change game mechanics to stop some issues, but not all. I think that the spam rule from game rules should be enforceable until comp says otherwise. This would undoubtedly put many people in jail. Some for their second offence. And if it is a second offence should be harsher punishment than the first.
Blatent disregard for rules after punishment should result in a lengthy stay in jail. This shows they have no wish to follow the rules and be punished as so.

Once again these are my opinions and i have no authority.

[Mr_Maks]

Sorry Lestat but I agree with compbatant.
Rules should be simple and easy to understand for everyone. I read the rules about "clan buildings spam" and I don't understand all of these aspects. Complicated rules can be easy abused.

I want to say that because of the controversial rules, we have what we got now.We must believe that the combatant will be able to close all the controversial mechanics that he considers necessary and resolve what he does not consider a violation.

You may not agree with me, or the combatant also.